Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Disgrace - Obama’s increasingly absurd gay marriage position

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:05 PM
Original message
Disgrace - Obama’s increasingly absurd gay marriage position
Great article from the New Republic.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/77154/barack-obama-...

In the fall of 1912, as his campaign for president entered its final stage, Woodrow Wilson was speaking in Brooklyn when he was asked for his opinion on women’s suffrage. The issue was very much in the political ether, but Wilson had declined to take a stand on it. According to John Milton Cooper’s excellent biography of the twenty-eighth president, he responded by insisting that it was “not a question that is dealt with by the national government at all.” The woman who had asked the question was apparently displeased by this blatant dodge. “I am speaking to you as an American, Mr. Wilson,” she retorted.

I am speaking to you as an American: It was a wonderful rebuke, one that anticipated the rhetoric of Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders who would not rail against America but instead demand to be fully part of it. Wilson, however, was unmoved. And his slippery treatment of women’s suffrage—like his slippery approach on matters of race—did not end once he was in the White House. Running for reelection four years later, he was still playing the same exasperating game. That year, the Democrats did not endorse a constitutional amendment providing for women’s suffrage but, instead, called on the states to extend voting rights to women. Such a half-measure looks cowardly in retrospect, of course; but it also looked cowardly at the time. In November 1916, The New Republic excoriated Wilson for his weak stand on the issue. During his reelection campaign, TNR wrote, Wilson had told a group of suffragists that “e was with them,” even as “he confessed to a ‘little impatience’ as to their anxiety about method.” From this, the magazine concluded that the president had “at best a vague, benign feeling about , and no conviction whatever that woman suffrage was creating a national situation which called for thorough sincerity, nerve and will.”

An evasive stance on a controversial civil rights issue from a liberal president; an insistence that the issue is primarily local, rather than national, in character; a complete failure of sincerity, nerve, and will: If these things sound familiar in 2010, it is because Barack Obama is taking exactly the same approach on gay marriage.

. . .

Obama and those around him seem unaware that all of this is a problem; a look at some of the lessons from Wilson’s experience might help to clarify why they ought to reconsider. The first lesson is that history does not look kindly on this type of presidential conduct. Wilson is today remembered as a near-great president, but his indifference on questions of gender and race is more than a bit unflattering in retrospect. Second, like Wilson, Obama is running out of time to stay ahead of history. In 1912, women’s suffrage was hardly an outlandish cause; one of the three major presidential contenders that year, Teddy Roosevelt, came out in favor of it, even as Wilson remained mum. Similarly, on gay marriage, Obama is now to the right of Laura Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and, according to a new CNN poll, 52 percent of the American people.


President Obama, a Democratic President, is now less liberal on this issue than a majority of Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oh... It's YOU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It is!
What's goin' on?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. Oh.... you know... same old same old. You?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #19
126. Homophia is the "same old, same old" . . . in that, I agree ---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Do you have any thoughts about the issue at hand that you would like to share? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Uh... nupe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. Some unreccers prefer the "early" Woodrow Wilson
...evidently
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. I K&Red it up to zero.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
6. Shame on Obama supporters Unrec'ing this thread.
There's simply no excuse for his bigoted stance, especially when he came out in 1996 in support of gay marriage when he was running for Senator. Obama is simply playing politics to appease the conservatives now.

It's time he showed some back-bone and conviction and sided with history on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Connie_Corleone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Well I just recommended the OP even though I'm an Obama supporter.
This is one issue where I believe Obama is playing politics too. He's dead wrong when it comes to gay marriage. I email the White House probably every week on this issue alone.

Unfortunately, my recommend didn't move the number up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sea Witch Donating Member (113 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #13
107. Thank you for that
I keep emailing too. I often wonder if they ever even get read. Someone told me hand written letters get more attention so I thought about trying to get friends and family to do that instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
natrlron Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
8. I agree
It is a disgrace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Welcome to DU.. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
23. Hello
Welcome to DU! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #8
120. Indeed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
9. Obama's position on gay marriage is absurd, shameful, and inexplicable.
On this, I don't understand him at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
46. It could be his own personal belief that gay marriage is wrong
According to his faith, I mean. He can have those opinions as a private individual and live by them. But as president he must recognize the laws of this country and equal rights for all Americans is not a difficult thing to understand.

If there is some political reason for it, I can't see what it is as most people do not have a problem with the issue. It's probably way down on the list of things to fight against for the average American these days.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #46
57. He is President of the United States...
Not President of What God Wants.

His religion does not trump my rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #57
65. Fucking nailed it.
Obama can pray on his own time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mad_Dem_X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #57
81. "His religion does not trump my rights."
Well said! :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
racaulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #57
89. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #57
102. +2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #57
148. And only =parts= of Leviticus are important, of course.
Wearing clothing made of mixed fibers? Nah, not important.
Eating shellfish? Nah, not important.

But The Gayness? MUST. BE. STOPPED!

:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #46
76. No. It couldn't be.
I cannot read the president's mind, but I can acknowledge that bailing on marriage equality is something that all the significant presidental candidates had in common. That's not coincidence; that's policy. The Bible also says, "thou shalt not kill," but that didn't stop President Obama from perpetuating and even escalating war.

No, trading away LGBTQ equality is one of the first lessons a successful American politician learns, if s/he wants to be big time. They all do it, and I don't believe any one of them is sincere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #46
78. His faith prompted him to support gay marriage in 1996
--running for state senator. He regularly attended a Christian church whose pastor performed ceremonies for gay couples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #46
106. Crack a Bible and read some of the books he gets his 'faith'
from. Then try to tell me that he and his wife live their lives according to the rules in those books which apply to them. They simply do not. Read what Paul says about how women should behave, then look at Michelle, and tell me she has standing to judge gay people on the basis of St Paul. Just saying. I am sick to death of the pretense. Paul says a few things against gay people, he also says women must be silent in public, covered, never wearing costly things or anything that is meant to draw attention to her or to her beauty. Women are to remain subservient to all men, and submissive to their husbands. They are never ever to ask a question of anyone but their husbands.
So as private individuals, they do not live by those books. They simply do not. St Paul teaches that slaves should obey their masters as they are God's proxy on earth to the slave. Do you think the Obamas believe that one? Treat your master as you would treat God?
It just gets old. They have zero standing to question anyone. Hypocrites. And that is that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onpatrol98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #106
109. I'm sorry!
Did I miss a comment or something that Michelle Obama has made on gay marriage? Why is she mentioned as judging gay people?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #109
125. Quite a number of First Ladies have spoken out when they've disagreed with hubby....
HOWEVER, what I think was being addressed was that this couple presumably share

the same RELIGION -- and therefore the same religious values --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #109
128. It was evidently part of the same statement,
from the president, which I apparently missed too, where he must have said that thinks gay marriage should not be legal in this country. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #46
124. Especially, as Obama once taught Constitutional law ... !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
12. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
14. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
17. I was *just* thinking about this last week.
I rewatched "Iron Jawed Angels" about the passage of the 19th amendment. Wilson's speech to congress is the very picture of using the bully pulpit with force majure, even when you don't personally give a toss about the oppressed group's concerns. It's a great speech that really shows the power of the President to affect change in legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. The strange thing about that speech
Edited on Mon Aug-23-10 06:03 PM by Prism
Is how Wilson framed the idea of suffrage as a military necessity. Shades of Lincoln and abolition.

I think that's what makes the DADT fiasco so infuriating. Here we are, engaged in two wars in the Mid-East, discharging linguistic specialists and soldiers. How easy would it have been to go full Lincoln and issue stop loss while citing military necessity?

It's brave, common sense, and politically deft. But no, we have to do the triangulation shuffle, so the lack of LGBT equality gets dragged on . . . and on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Exactly!
Edited on Mon Aug-23-10 06:04 PM by Starry Messenger
There's never going to be a better time, and it parallels the other situations just as you say. Not to mention it's the bloody 21st century and this just needs to get the fuck done. I mean, gay people can't even go into *outer space* as astronauts because of our stupid laws. Are we going to keep this up until the great galactic wars?? I hate to say it again, but when the history books get written about this phase of civil rights, the current president won't even be a footnote at the rate things are going now. And that is really heartbreaking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
20. Just horrible. The man hasn't appointed or hired a single "out" LGBTer to his administration
As for those two old-maid SCOTUS appointments -- are they or aren't they? Absolutely disgraceful that they won't say. Someone from the left should out them post-hate.

The fact that he is waiting for Congress to repeal DADT andwon't personally repeal DOMA by fiat Says It All. The man is a flaming homophobe and someday will show his true colors.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Hekate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. This response is hateful and wrong.
Have you no decency or shame?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. I wish Obama were more proactive on marriage and the military, but to excoriate him as a homophobe?
To say the things that get said about him routinely here, regarding his stance on LGBT issues?

That is what is indecent and shameless.

Hekate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Answer this simple question
Would you consider someone against interracial marriage a racist?

Why/Why not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Just a simple question -- ech -- have a nice day
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. It's a very simple question
And given your insistence there is nothing homophobic in opposing gay marriage, I would like an answer. You've made your argument. Defend it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. The poster can't answer that, methinks
Because to answer honestly would prove your point, and to answer dishonestly would brand them a racist (which they aren't).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #36
44. this is also what makes them so mad
because of the cognitive dissonance in support for a candidate who is, on the one hand, such a groundbreaking person, as someone of African-American heritage, while, at the same time, willing to treat others as the south treated blacks.

it's hard for anyone who wants to support the democratic party to see that the candidates have some attitudes that bring shame upon them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #44
50. Exactly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #44
133. +1000%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #44
149. You nailed it re: "cognitive dissonance"
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #36
69. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #69
137. The lastest in the pony contest is homosexuals are being "selfish" ....!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dragonfli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. You know the answer but are too cowardly to admit his bigotry - classy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #26
156. Hekate....
SHAME!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #156
165. For my sarcasm? >sigh< Mom always said my sharp tongue would get me in trouble.
I hang my head
... in solidarity with all those who support and work for equal rights, yet are old enough to remember other struggles and how bloody long they took, step by step by step.

Hekate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. But that's different
It just is.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dragonfli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. He opposes gay marriage and does so publicly, That is homophobic and bigoted
I will explain it - you see gay people are people too, actual and real and should therefore have EQUAL rights.
Opposing the equal rights of any group is bigoted, when the focus of derision and unequal rights happens to be gay they call it homophobic.

Opposing equal rights is the text book definition of bigotry.

He is a bigot, enlighten him or accept his bigotry, but don't pretend it is not what it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. To be against gay marriage is to be a homophobe.
Plain and simple, no two ways about it. The question is: what does Obama really think? He used to be for gay marriage, if I'm not mistaken. Now he's against it. What gives? If he's not a homophobe, what exactly explains the change in his position?

Calling him a homophobe is not 'indecent and shameless'. His behavior on this issue is indecent and shameless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #29
75. not so simple with a politican
is Obama, deep down, a homophobe? I don't know. Does he care more about catering to homophobe votes than doing the right thing? That would be a big fat fucking YES.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #75
161. +infinity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backtomn Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #29
115. So....Obama was a homophobe during the campaign....
when he said that he did not support gay marriage (regardless of what he may have said 12 years earlier). Then why did we vote for him? Maybe some of us voted based on the totality of his views and not on one issue. Whatever it was, some of you apparently assumed that his position would change after getting in office.............but why??

You are free to call him a homophobe and say his position is "indecent and shameless".......but we cannot say that we didn't see it coming. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #24
79. The OP doesn't say that Obama is a homophobe
It says he lacks courage, which is unfortunately true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #24
127. DU has a pro-gay marriage policy .... and Obama doesn't . . . ???
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 12:15 PM by defendandprotect
Presumably, also, Obama's opinions are based on his religious "values" which should

have nothing to do with his presidency. We saw how "religion" was used by W to throw

money at religion's "faith-based" organizations -- money we're still paying to subsidize

religion.

Certainly religious teachings are homophobic and bigoted --



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #21
34. No
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #21
43. No. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #20
38. Shame they can be Supreme Court appointees
yet not serve in the military openly

real shame

wonder who can order the military to stop enforcing DADT? Flippo the Clown? Pat? Rob the copy guy? The Naked Cowboy? Putin?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #20
52. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. Ah, the old Sarcasm Smiley fails again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Is opposition to inter racial marriage racist?
Yes or no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #56
68. Yes, because you can't use a sarcasm smiley to offset anti-gay hatred.
Maybe you and Dr. Laura should have a talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #20
82. So now you're mocking GLBT citizens for demanding that the President support marriage equality?
Your gut reaction is curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HillWilliam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #20
86. Putting more minstrels in the show
doesn't make the un-free any freer. REPEATED instances of making pretty speeches before the A-Gay, big-dollar-donor crowd (like HRC who do nothing for the millions of walking-around LGBTQ's they claim to represent) then within three days defend DOMA in the most insulting of terms, actively lobbying Congress to go slow on DADT, actively refusing to obey a court order multiple times in granting spousal coverage to a federal employee, ... the list goes on and on.

All of these came after McClurkin where we were told to shut up, suck it up, walk it off and help get him elected. We did.

These came after Warren where we were told to shut up, suck it up, walk it off and support him. We did.

He said he was a fierce advocate for us and supported our rights, but his actions and his staffers' actions repeatedly -- repeatedly -- put the lie to the flowery words.

He said he would push to repeal DADT, but he sent his staffers to the Hill to insist that Congress delay any action on it. He said he had a committee to push for repeal, then we found out THAT was a lie.

DOMA has been another disaster for us altogether.

This is the thanks we get for our money, time, effort, support, and votes. Repeated slaps in the face and insults.

I'm sick and tired of "butbutbutbut look at more clowns in the circus act!! Don't you feel freer!!" bullshit. Making pets out of a few of the lucky ones doesn't improve the lot for the millions of the rest of us one damn bit. Do NOT stand before me and tell me the diametric opposite of direct observation. We might be gay, but we're not fucking stupid.

There is a wide, wide, wide gulf between what he says and what he does. Defending the indefensible is in and of itself indefensible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #86
87. Oh what a good post -- bravo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HillWilliam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #87
98. Hiya (((Lost))) LTNS
I've just had it. I really have. I've held my silence for months, being unwilling to jump into the fray. I just can't hold it any longer. The pain from being stepped on and being told to suck it up because a vanishingly small, extremely lucky few are being tokenized is just more than I can any longer bear in silence.

It is far too much of an insult as a gay man and a human being with human feelings.

I wouldn't do such a thing to someone else and I resent it being done to me and millions like me.

It would be unreasonable of us to whine if political realities (on one hand) forced us to wait a year or so if we KNEW we would achieve real, measurable goals. We can do that. We've waited all our lives.

It is NOT unreasonable on the other hand to expect when promises are made that they won't be broken within hours by the most insulting of actions and in the most insulting of terms. It is NOT unreasonable to be upset when promises and flowery speeches of "fierce advocacy" are made (and our money, time, votes, effort, and support are garnered) then repeated actions that stab us in the back are undertaken.

Once, okay. Twice, we'd be cautious. Three times, we'd have cause to be less-than-enthused.

But what we have here is a long, unbroken, repetitive record of saying one thing and doing something else entirely egregious. THAT is why we're pissed.

Hey, Lost, PM me again some time. I've missed your "voice".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #86
88. +1000000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
racaulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #86
92. Fantastic post!!!
Thank you!

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #86
131. +7 Well said. /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tpsbmam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #86
134. Holy shit!
Best, most spot on & articulate rant I've read in a long time!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #86
138. Think we need to start getting candidates to sign PLEDGES ....????
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 12:28 PM by defendandprotect
on every issue!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shining Jack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #86
147. + a Brazillion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #86
151. Well stated. This deserves its own OP.
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duncan Grant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #86
153. Thank you, HillWilliam. My sentiments exactly.
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #86
166. Fucking A-doodle RIGHT, HillWilliam! Awesome post nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #20
93. So unmarried women qualify as lesbian appointments? In that case, HW Bush was progressive
on gays because he nominated David Souter, a lifelong bachelor.

I'm sorry Hekate but that's a giant S_T_R_E_T_C_H.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
racaulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #20
108. That's a whole bunch of straw. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rusty fender Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #20
114. This response is the Dr. Laura way of responding--
that worked well for her, didn't it. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
135. Good point -- there should be "openly gay" members of the administration....
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 12:20 PM by defendandprotect
especially after Warren!!

Certainly makes it look as thought Obama is more concerned about placating the

religious right than the human rights community -- !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
155. Disgusting, sick and disgusting.
Not a surprise anymore but disgusting and sick still Hekate....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Safetykitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
31. Arnold. He's right of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Pathetic and so unnecessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. And Dick Cheney, Ted Olsen, Eliz. Hasselbeck, Laura Bush, and Cindy McCain
Seriously...

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
33. but wait! the big O is surveying women and families for permission to end DADT. does that count? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dragonfli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Of course, our rights have always been by neighbor's permission and not law duh..
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #33
45. And when that is finished, and the surveys of neighbors and household pets,
then there might be discussion of maybe lifting DADT at some uncertain point in the future, possibly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rusty fender Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #45
118. My pets say 'yay' on ending DADT!
:fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #33
119. I don't think Eisenhower...
Surveyed families of servicemen in Mississippi as to whether he should end desegregation in the military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jannyk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
39. k&r #17
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
40. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
41. It's Hell taking a position on a divisive, polarizing issue -- you're either with us or against us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #41
53. Yeah, that's because you ARE either with us or against us.
What's the half measure on black civil rights? What's the half measure on holocaust denial? You are either for equality or you are not for equality. It's as simple as math. Politicians want to make it complicated so they can do whatever will serve their ambitions. But it's not complicated. You're for equality or you're against equality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #53
64. What's the half measure on black civil rights?
Getting the voting rights act passed years before the civil rights act.
The endless compromises and deal-making to get the civil rights act passed into law.
The much less famous and less important civil rights act that passed under Eisenhower that didn't help a whole lot but broke the precedent of every civil rights bill since reconstruction being filibustered.
Truman desegregating the military by executive order because he couldn't get his civil rights bill through congress.

Every step of progress was accompanied by compromises that were later overcome.

Obama favors civil unions that provide the same legal rights as marriage. That's the next step forward. And he spoke out publicly against an effort to ban gay marriage. I understand pushing him to call it marriage and not civil unions. That needs to happen. But portraying Obama as the enemy on this is way off base. He's not the barrier blocking progress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #64
67. But were Kennedy and Johnson *against* the civil rights act?
That's the difference. It's not about political compromise, it's about an elected leader who personally and explicitly does not share our goals on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #67
70. Kennedy never supported a number of things that were in LBJ's civil rights law.
In fact, he tried to get civil rights groups to back off a civil rights bill and settle for voting rights, which they did for a while. That was far more hostile to advancing civil rights than anything Obama has done.

You obviously missed my point. They favored the next steps forward. So does Obama. What you're arguing is equivalent to accusing Truman of selling out because he proposed the next step forward instead of affirmative action hiring mandates and reparations.

You wrote: "it's about an elected leader who personally and explicitly does not share our goals on this issue."

So you don't favor same-sex partnerships that have all the full legal rights of marriage? Because Obama favors it as a next step toward marriage. What goals do you have that are different?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #70
72. So Kennedy was personally, religiously opposed to equal rights for blacks?
Hmmm... what an interesting perspective you have.

This isn't about legislative compromise. Neither JFK nor LBJ ever put out a statement as Obama did, stating that they were personally opposed to full equality for black people. That's what Obama is doing to the LGBT community, and it's MUCH more damaging than any legislative agenda could be.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #73
80. but the fact is civil unions is his end goal
He doesn't favor marriage, and civil unions can never be equal, if you don't believe me on that, believe the NJ group that studied it. It is one thing to advocate compromises that are intended to be temporary stops on the way to full rights. It is quite another to advocate as a final end point a seperate, unequal, bigotted product.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #80
122. If ...
He came out all for Gay marriage then federally recognized legal civil unions could be the compromise. That would be a negotiated compromise and a step in the proper direction.


Instead the triangulators have convinced him to play conservative and tight to the chest about all things regarding Gay rights. Result: Little to no legislative traction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #73
90. Judge Walker Vaughn struck down the notion that civil unions provide equal rights. I agree.
Walker's findings, however, directly contradict Obama's stance on gay marriage. As Marc noted yesterday, Walker found that marriage is a civil institution, subject to religious intervention only when needed. And civil unions aren't the same, Walker finds: "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage...The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/jud...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #70
132. Separate but equal has never been a stepping stone towards full equality.
It has always been a way to attempt to withhold equality.

Equal rights is equal rights. You can't have something that is "equivalent" to equality. We are either equal or we are not.

Obama has taken the position that we are not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #64
121. Uhm therein lies the error.
We assume by looking back in history that the compromise is important, but the compromises were only possible when we had oppositional points of view colliding and having to adjust what is towards what we want to have happen.

The great tragically stupid mistake of the conserva-dems is that they somehow assume by moving to the position of the compromise and centering the party around that compromise they are actually accomplishing anything worthy of note.

Even the Republicans understand the basic negotiating position of asking for more than they are going to get and opposing that which they oppose. They frigging suck and they understand politics better than the DLC dipshit "pro's" of our party.

All of your compromises required a fired up and dedicated bunch of people who were for integration and civil rights for all Americans and the only reason there had to be a compromise was because it had to fight past the racists. If our leaders are all proposing or pushing some kind of half hearted mealy mouthed measure than where do you expect the compromise to end up? The Answer: somewhere between ineffectual and nonexistant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
42. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
47. What else can you call it? Few things I can say I'm more ashamed of than enabling such
and encouraging a form of separate but equal for some of my fellow citizens out of bogus triangulation.

If I can say I was being a homophobe for supporting those tactics then it sure as hell applies to those actually engaging in such behavior.

I never had any actual opposition to gay marriage and don't honestly believe it should be a governmental issue at all but it is and as such we must provide equal rights and protection to all citizens and that being the case none of us have the right to tell our brothers and sisters to shut up and wait their turn for justice and equality.

It is fucking shameful to treat people like this or to use them as a political football.

I am sorry to anyone that I shit on and made to feel they needed to take a number and drink a steaming hot cup of shut the fuck up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
48. It is disgraceful, and needs to change. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
49. K & R. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
51. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
54. It really is a disgrace
Leadership on his part would likely help greatly on both the marriage and the DADT front.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
55. I find his failure to adhere to progressive principles very disappointing.
I set my cynism aside in 2008 and believed the sun would come out tomorrow if we followed this new guy into the future. My kids are all in their 20s, and this was the guy who would supposed to be their FDR.

By trying to prove to those who will never accept him that he's not too liberal, he's only pissed off a substantial portion of the progressive left he has to have to win elections. He's tried to placate people who were never going to be placated. They led him down the primrose path, and he followed.

He is the flagship for the party. When his popularity falls, so do marginal congressional candidates for the party. The only votes his equivocations have changed are the ones which voted with him last who will stay at home next time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
58. And women finally got the right to vote by having a well organized movement.
Not by begging a President to hand it down to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. then what were they doing in front of the White House getting arrested?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. And the Capitol building.
It was one tactic to gain publicity in a much larger organizing campaign that had many targets. Even Wilson's support isn't what got the amendment passed.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9805E5D7...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:18 AM
Response to Reply #58
77. I think you need to educate yourself about the Suffrage MOvement
And not one Gay American is BEGGING for anything. Like the Iron-Jawed Angels, we are DEMANDING equal civil rights.

And, nice blaming the victim snark in your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #58
91. Insulting. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
racaulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #58
99. Was there a Presidential candidate at that time who...
...held himself out to be a "fierce advocate" for women's suffrage? :shrug:

President Obama didn't have to give himself that label or make promises to the GLBT community while campaigning, but he did. No one is begging him for squat. People are only holding his feet to the fire to stay true to his word on gay rights issues, like he asked us to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #58
116. Women got the vote because of grassroots activism and a politician's courage
Harry Burn, of Tennessee. But, Wilson, the PRESIDENT, got the ball rolling.


"The Nineteenth Amendment, regarding female suffrage, was proposed by Congress on June 14, 1919. The amendment could not become law without the ratification of a minimum thirty-six of the forty-eight states. By the summer of 1920, thirty-five of the forty-eight states had ratified the amendment, with a further four states called upon to hold legislative voting sessions on the issue. Three of the states refused to call special sessions, but Tennessee agreed to do so. This session was called to meet in August 1920.<3>

Burn had originally planned to make clear his intention to vote "nay" in any session. However, a letter from his mother asking him to vote in favor of the amendment helped to change his mind. Mrs. J. L. Burn (Febb Ensminger) of Niota, Tennessee, had written a long letter to her son, a copy of which he held during the voting session on August 18, 1920. The letter contained the following:

Dear Son: Hurrah and vote for suffrage! Don't keep them in doubt! I notice some of the speeches against. They were bitter. I have been watching to see how you stood, but have not noticed anything yet. Don't forget to be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt put the "rat" in ratification. Your mother<4>

After much debating and argument, the result of the vote was 48-48. Burn's vote broke the tie in favor of ratifying the amendment."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Burn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #116
123. "But, Wilson, the PRESIDENT, got the ball rolling."
Even the article linked above contradicts that statement. He was a latecomer, as Presidents usually are to changes that require a fundamental shift in American attitudes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #123
136. No, President Wilson got the ball rolling
People on this thread have tried to educate you. Perhaps you should go back and reread the post about hi speech to Congress. The despicable torture of the Iron-Jawed Angels in the so-called workhouse was an embarrassment to Wilson and his Administration, so he went and told Congress to get their asses moving.

Our current "Fierce Advocate" could make a Congressional speech about GLBT rights.

The article didn't contradict anything. :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #136
141. From the article, all the way at the end.
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 12:41 PM by Radical Activist
"Wilson, albeit years late to the cause, would go on to lobby senators and, eventually, the governor of Tennessee, which became the final state to ratify the nineteenth amendment."

There's an inherent contradiction to "getting the ball rolling" and being "years late to the cause." Wilson had a part but he only joined in after a critical mass of support was emerging. The ball was already rolling downhill with momentum when Wilson joined in.

I'd be thrilled if Obama came out for calling it marriage instead of only supporting the exact same legal rights under another name (as he does now). People are right to push him on that. I think casting him as the homophobic enemy is a little over the top but I agree with the goal of pushing him on the issue.
As a student of American political history, I know that major changes like this come from organized popular movements, not by Presidential decree. Changes that rely too much on the power of the President, without wide public support, are often undone by the next President (such as U.S. Grant's civil rights policies, and portions of LBJ's Great Society programs).
From a strategic standpoint, it made the suffrage movement much stronger when they were forced to campaign in every state, and not just lobby in DC. All I'm arguing is that expecting or relying on the power of ANY President is a mistake for any progressive movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #141
143. That doesn't contradict what I said -- good try, though
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #143
144. It very clearly does in plain English.
Getting the ball rolling refers to the start of the process.
The article explicitly says Wilson was a latecomer.
The two statements are completely contradictory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nye Bevan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-10 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
62. On this issue, Obama is either a bigoted homophobe or a craven political coward
I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is a craven political coward. On this issue, he is a disgrace and an embarrassment. Just imagine how much good he could do with an "I was wrong" speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. He makes it pretty obvious
that it's a political calculation.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/77120/what-does-...

We've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.

Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cate94 Donating Member (573 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #63
111. Since marriage is a legal contract
what is your point? No religion has to marry anyone. Period. Ever. The Catholic Church doesn't marry anyone who is legally divorced unless they pay for an annulment by the church. Churches who don't want to marry a gay couple would never have to marry a gay couple.

There are numerous churches that do perform ceremonies right now, but these ceremonies don't confer the legal rights. Why do some churches get to tell us what should or shouldn't be legal?

It is b.s. to pretend that any church should have any voice in MY legal rights.


To make civil unions = marriage you need to change hundreds of laws. Why should the government pay for those changes? What is the point? Marriage is a civil contract. It should be civil right for all people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #111
150. Hmm..
I think you're interpreting the quote differently than I do. Obama was not suggesting that church's have the power to determine your equal rights. He was saying that same sex couples should all of the same full legal rights as any other marriage. If churches want to pout and say that isn't a "real" marriage it's up to them, but Obama isn't suggesting they have any legal role. You're absolutely right that they shouldn't have that power.

I've seen the claim about changing hundreds of laws lately but I don't see how it relates to what Obama supports. It seems like it would only take one civil union law that says they have all the same rights as any legal marriage.
Again, I agree that Obama should come out in support of calling it marriage instead of civil unions. He probably takes the stand because he thought it was necessary to win a national election and he needs to correct himself. I just have a hard time seeing him as the problem when he's pushing the country in the right direction. Many states haven't even passed a basic non-discrimination bill yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smashcut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #63
142. Way to spread the RW talking point that marriage is a religious institution first.
You are so transparent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #142
146. I quoted
Obama. And I don't think the quotes imply what you say they do anyway.

What do you mean by saying I'm "transparent?" I've stated that I support full marriage rights several times on this thread and others. That should be transparent enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirkGently Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #63
145. That would make more sense if "marriage" was strictly a
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 01:17 PM by DirkGently
religious term. But no one is talking about, in any sense, telling religion what religion can define as "marriage." Never were. And we all know that.

The issue is the constellation of LEGAL RIGHTS, already defined by mountains of state and federal law, that follow with the legal status called "marriage." If the government wants to get entirely out of the marriage business, and say, replace the words "marriage" and "married" with "civil union" for EVERYONE regarding legal status, I'm sure that would be fine with our gay citizens, who are not demanding religious recognition, but legal equality.

That would be a far more complicated process, though, than simply agreeing that no one can "ban" the legal status of marriage to gay couples.

And what would be the point, aside from assuaging religious extremists who believe their personal notions of God somehow own the word "marriage?"

I do agree this is a political calculation. A bad one. President Obama didn't win the election promising to softpeddle important issues like this, backtrack, equivocate. Why in the world does his team suddenly think that trying to appease the rabid conservatives who really DO hate him, gains him anything? The weight has shifted on this issue, and President Obama is falling to the right side of the curve for no discernible reason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #145
152. First
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 01:39 PM by Radical Activist
I responded to some of what you wrote in comment 150 and I'm feeling too lazy to write it again.

But your other point:

"Why in the world does his team suddenly think that trying to appease the rabid conservatives who really DO hate him, gains him anything? The weight has shifted on this issue, and President Obama is falling to the right side of the curve for no discernible reason."

I don't think it's the rabid conservative religious types that he's trying to appease. They'll never go for any kind of civil unions law and he knows it. I think he's appealing to the large number of Americans who grew up with certain attitudes that are slowly shifting over time. There are states Obama won that haven't passed a basic non-discrimination law, and others aren't even close to passing a civil unions bill, much less a marriage bill. I agree that Obama should support calling it marriage instead of only civil unions with the same legal benefits, but I don't believe you're right to say that he's to the right side of the curve. A single poll within the margin of error doesn't prove that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #62
103. Doesn't have to go that far
I always assumed Obama was a wimpy centreist but he doesn't have to go as far as saying "I was wrong". He can simply stand up and say something like "I took my previous position with the best of intentions but I have been persueded to change my mind by the story of X" (X = pick a gay person, doesn't really matter who since this is mostly face-saving. I'd imagine Dan Choi would be perfectly willing to let his story be used as cover if it got things going the right way).

The problem with political cowardice is that you run the risk of looking like Canute, trying to hold back teh tide of history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
66. Sounds like Wilson was a "fierce advocate" for women's rights.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:27 AM
Response to Original message
71. Like I said. Disappeared.
What a fucking joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:20 AM
Response to Original message
74. !!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cwydro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
83. k an r
This is just one issue where I have been bitterly disappointed by Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
williesgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
84. It's way past time for every Woman, Black & Hispanic to get behind the Gay community. We've all
been discriminated against in our lifetimes and know how this feels and the results of it in our own lives. If we don't, we'll all regret it as friends and loved ones continue to suffer, and the US stands in shame until we do. I apologize if I left out any groups - it's not intentional, I'm late for an appointment but simply had to post. rec'd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #84
101. I'm thank you for taking the time to post what you did.
It is a great post. :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
85. Religion is the gift that keeps on giving and giving. Just imagine life without it.
All that equality would drive everyone up a wall!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
94. K & R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlingBlade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
95. K & R . Moving even farther to the Right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
96. K & R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
97. I understand why he took that stance
I mean, I don't agree with it for a second but when he took that stance, it seemed like a shrewd political move (unlike some, I never forgot that Obama is a politician); it placated some of the religious right by denying gay people full blown marriage while not entirely alienating the gay community since it offered them some rights (and besides, the chances of them voting for the Paleolithic/Pathetic ticket were nil).

So I understand why he took that position during the campaign. But to continue holding it is just stupid. Maybe it's Obama's instinctive triangulation on every issue that makes him pick the midway point between "entirely right" and "utterly wrong", I don't know. But someone needs to get in his ear about this because gay people really aren't in the mood to be used as political capital right now. We need same-sex marriage to be legalised or, if you're too cowardly for that, civil unions at the federal level with the exact same rights and responsibilities (then you can come back in a few years and change the name once everyone's gotten used to the idea). That will naturally mean overturning DOMA and while I recognise that you can't do that single-handed, you have the world's biggest bully pulpit available to you. As for DADT, I'm mystified why gay people (or anyone else) would want to join the military right now but you could at least suspend it's enforcement.

The left are already on board, the right could not possibly villify Obama any more without starting a civil war (and some are already trying that) and the middle is coming around. When the polls are within the margin of error (which 52% is), you really have no choice but to cast the die.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
racaulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
100. K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mstinamotorcity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
104. Our President said
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 10:16 AM by mstinamotorcity
on the campaign trail, he was for civil unions. And I still say that all marriages should be called civil unions and let your interpretation of the ceremony be called marriage if you like. And I am not against same sex marriage or relationships. I just think people hear what they want to hear. I know some of our LGBT community are extremely angry,but do they think that they will be able to push there agenda through with any other administration say like Dubya. I believe that equality rights will be given on this matter,but with such a hard push from the right and religious groups I believe it won't be until it ends up in SCOTUS and I think that even though we want it now the fight might be best won with the most protections at the highest judicial level. IMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #104
105. Fired up and ready to go! Yay! He's better than Bush! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #105
110. What an inspiring campaign slogan: We're Not Quite as Bad as Bush. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #110
139. Makes me tingly all over! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
racaulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #104
112. "but do they think that they will be able to push there agenda through with any other...
...administration say like Dubya."

No, I don't see anyone arguing that point at all.

:shrug:

But having a Democratic President, with significantly large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, should have been enough.

How many Dems is enough? And if not now, when?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mstinamotorcity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #112
154. It should be enough
But they have not caught up with this generation. Whenever it happens I will be happy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
butterfly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #104
113. K&R!
You tell'em ms.motorcity! Their anger should be aimed at the bluedog/CONS and neocons who block every damn thing the Pres tries to do. A lot of them have been angry all along because they hate that he is president they think they should be the one,and they think they are superior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #104
117. Except "marriage" is a legal term on every level of government
Yet another bogus excuse to not advocate for marriage equality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mstinamotorcity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #117
157. Look the word marriage
is no big deal to me,it may be because i am married or in a civil union or shacking or what ever you want to call it. But if the word was so important and has so much meaning why is the divorce rate so high? And it was high before the recession. :grouphug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
placton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
129. Obama is less liberal than
- his campaign promises

- most American on just about EVERY issue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
130. K&R
:) - From a member of the exasperating, demanding and unconscionable Liberal Left!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
140. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
158. i do`t remember Christ ever saying anything about gay people...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foxfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
159. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Green Manalishi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
160. K&R
One either supports full and immediate marriage equality and repeal of DADT *NOW*, or one is a homophobic bigot. No middle ground, no nuance, no compromise, no grey area, recgardless of any other stands or actions taken.
That's my .02
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pezDispenser Donating Member (443 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
162. I'm not the worlds biggest Obama fan
But what would you like him to do on this issue? This is something that will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. We're not a dictatorship, we do have 3 branches of government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Green Manalishi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #162
163. End DADT by presidential decree, right now.
Yes, it is possible that it could be repealed by a future president but that should not matter.
He is CIC, he can do it. This afternoon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pezDispenser Donating Member (443 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #163
164. And that helps gay marriage how?
Apples and oranges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Green Manalishi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #164
167. Psychological victory.
and at least doing for the 'base' what he can, where he can, when he can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC