What would you say if these were his comments?

[Pab Sungenis]

Today, the President made a statement about same-sex marriage to a LGBT*.* advocacy group. While some may be applauding his comments, if you break them down they're not as nice as some might claim. In fact, if we were to transfer them, in context, to the last great marriage rights debate, they would seem weak at best, downright offensive at worst.

The only things changed in these two paragraphs are the substitution of one marriage debate and one minority group for another.

In his first presidential remarks to a mixed-race audience, President Barack Obama said at a Midtown fundraising gala that interracial couples "deserve the same legal rights" as all couples, and that New York State is having a proper, democratic "debate" on the legalization of miscegenation.

Obama told a very receptive crowd of about 600 at the NAACP gala at the Sheraton that while he was against discrimination based on race, the final battle for marriage equality would have to take place in the state Legislature.

If he had given that speech today, would you be supporting his decision? Would you be acknowledging Southern Baptist arguing that "God is in the mix" and that mixed-race marriages were against the Bible?

Mr. President, NO ONE should have their rights subject to the ballot box. It's that simple. It's time to lead. Justice for ALL.

[William769]

1. K&R.

Why do people have to take something so simple and make it hard?

[TriMera]

2. K&R. n/t

[msongs]

3. I wish his wars/squandering our wealth on the military was on the ballot locally nt

[DeSwiss]

4. K&R - n/t

[DURHAM D]

5. K & R

perfect

[susanr516]

6. Marriage equality NOW nt

[bigwillq]

7. K and R

:thumbsup:

[The Doctor.]

8. This may be a little rough to hear, but at the moment, the elimination of discrimination

is still a matter of law.

The President doesn't make laws. What he said was exactly true and correct.

I'm not surprised, I guess. Some have to really stretch things to maintain the 'Obama is a homophobe' même.

Perhaps if he were a dictator things would be so much easier.

[dsc]

10. He could have said

And I think New York should vote to allow marriage equality. He didn't.

[bigwillq]

13. Glad I wasn't the only one

that didn't hear Obama say that in that speech.

Good post. :thumbsup:

[The Doctor.]

14. I would have liked that too.

That could have posed a problem though. Anything the President says can affect the dynamic of a given vote. His saying it should go one way could have resulted in pushing it the opposite way. Any legislators who were marginally wooed towards voting with the Democrats might suddenly be able to create more political capital out of any such endorsement.

I believe this is, again, the President recognizing that rocking the boat could have unwanted consequences.

[polmaven]

34. +1

That is exactly right. The NY legislature needs at least 1 (R) vote for this to pass. This (D) president has to keep his opinion to himself to prevent the (R)s from voting against it simply because he is for it.

This president's opinion is not going to influence Republican votes in a positive way.

[MNBrewer]

56. So, by not being a "fierce advocate", he's actually being a "fierce advocate"?

LOL. The President provides no leadership on this issue at all, other than in a reactionary sense.

[customerserviceguy]

20. It's too bad there's no mechanism for that

I came from a state (Washington) that used the initiative and referendum process, and every time the voters of that state have had a step in the direction of equality, they did the right thing. Unfortunately, NY is one of those states where elected officials are too damn selfish to give any power to the people.

[ruggerson]

11. DADT was a law

So, according to your logic, Obama deserves no credit for the repeal of DADT.

Got it.

[The Doctor.]

16. Exercising deliberate obliviousness doesn't help make a very good case.

Obama asked for that repeal. He signed it. He could not write and pass the law himself. Many do not wish to give him credit, but he owns that repeal.

He could certainly request some federal mandate for all states to remove s/o discrimination from the issuance of marriage licenses... and hand his enemies the greatest political weapon they could want on a silver platter.

I know that we know what is right, and that equality is a human right. Fortunately, Obama is smart enough to know that charging straight in would be the quickest road to defeat for BOTH equal rights and his 2012 Campaign. Right now, Obama's approach is the best shot we have at making marriage equality a reality.

[ruggerson]

18. Glad you see

That Presidents can have far more influence on the passing of legislation than merely signing what is put in front of them.

I give Obama, Congress and gay activists full credit for the passage of the repeal. And have said so repeatedly.

He can't overturn DOMA by himself, but he could champion the repeal and use the bully pulpit to be a very strong, passionate voice for marriage equality.

So far, he has made the political calculation not to do so.

[The Doctor.]

22. C+P

"I know that we know what is right, and that equality is a human right. Fortunately, Obama is smart enough to know that charging straight in would be the quickest road to defeat for BOTH equal rights and his 2012 Campaign. Right now, Obama's approach is the best shot we have at making marriage equality a reality."

DADT repeal was a difficult issue for haymaking. The media did their best to use it against him, but it wasn't terribly effective. Gay marriage is a fucking powder keg, and he knows it.

For the sake of making equal rights a reality, I'm glad Obama is in the WH rather than someone with the political precision of charging rhinoceros.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Equal rights for Americans is a 'fucking powder keg'?

What you like to call 'gay marriage' is just equal rights for minorities. Equal rights. Civil rights. It is the constant hyperbole of the laggers that does harm. The majority of the country favors marriage equality and all forms of equal rights. The majority. Most Americans. The opposition is basically Republicans and Obama. Fucking powder keg! Defend the sacrament, powder kegs, all the war imagery a person can shove onto an issue about equality and love. It gets so old, so tired. The President's surrogate during the primary urged war on us, and here you are, with more war words to add to the hype and the fear.
It's a fucking powder keg! This is war! Defend God!

[Pab Sungenis]

19. If Obama believes that we should have the same rights

then let him call for an end to DOMA.

Or let him use his bully pulpit. Here in New Jersey it was DEMOCRATIC lawmakers that killed marriage equality. They could (and a few did) duck behind the fact that "the President doesn't believe in gay marriage" when they justified denying my civil rights.

What about making marriage equality a litmus test for the next Supreme Court nomination? He's put two people on who are likely to be resistant to marriage equality so the next appointment could at least undo some damage.

Please don't pander to us, Mister President. Give us a real reason to vote for you or shut up and trust us to not vote for something worse.

[girl_interrupted]

12. Oh, what baloney!

I can't make a law either, but that doesn't stop me from saying I support Gay Marriage, and I'm not even Gay. It has been such a difficult week here in NY, hopes up and then down about the efforts to legalize Gay Marriage. How simple for Obama, to just say..."I support Gay Marriage" How friggin hard is that for him to do? Add his voice for support? Give me a break.

[The Doctor.]

17. Read #14.

There was a fellow named Terry Anderson. He was held hostage in Beirut for years, much longer than many of those he was apprehended with. Why?

Because his sister fought loudly for his release. She went on TV, petitioned the Government, and made such a huge issue of his imprisonment, it drove his value to the Lebanese government straight up.

Did she want what was right?

Absolutely.

Did she do the right thing by being outspoken about it?

No.

He is reported to have been very upset with her.


I know we all would love Obama to be more 'outspoken' on the eve of an important vote, but handing more leverage to opponents of marriage equality by doing so is too great a possibility. Right now, things look good. I don't think any of us would be happy with Obama if he disturbed the process and it went bad.

[Pab Sungenis]

21. The vast majority of those who oppose marriage equality

did not vote for Obama in 2008, and will not vote for him in 2012.

Let him do what is right, instead of what is politically expedient, and he'll not only solidify his base, but he'll win over independents who appreciate a leader with backbone.

[The Doctor.]

23. That's not the problem.

The problem is giving Republicans something to enrage, unify, and solidify THEIR base.

Right now, they have no viable candidate, no worthwhile message, and no chance. 'Political expedience' right now is about not giving them that chance.

"I know that we know what is right, and that equality is a human right. Fortunately, Obama is smart enough to know that charging straight in would be the quickest road to defeat for BOTH equal rights and his 2012 Campaign. Right now, Obama's approach is the best shot we have at making marriage equality a reality."

DADT repeal was a difficult issue for haymaking. The media did their best to use it against him, but it wasn't terribly effective. Gay marriage is a fucking powder keg, and he knows it.

For the sake of making equal rights a reality, I'm glad Obama is in the WH rather than someone with the political precision of charging rhinoceros.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. And more imagery of war, hostages, and extreme situations.

It is so typical of the foot dragging fear crowd. Hostages, negotiations, defense of the Sacrament, this is war, the gloves are off, powder keg, explosive.
The subject is never allowed to be spoken about it terms that are not extreme, laced with violent imagery and analogies of the combat kind.
It is, I believe, worth noting this. The lexicon of choice is always that of combat and confrontation, never of negotiation and common ground.

[Mimosa]

58. After all, it's all about Obama and what we can do for HIM

BlueNorthwest, I see what you see. I can't say it as well.

[MNBrewer]

55. What he said was NOT true, and NOT correct.

and, people who are not in favor of full marriage equality for GLBT citizens are homophobes.

[woo me with science]

9. K&R nt

[girl_interrupted]

15. K&R Pab, wish you would post what you said

on post #18 "Then stop fighting them" on the thread "Gay Couples Deserve Same Legal Rights" in GDP . That says it better than anything I have ever read! It's right to the point. Thanks!

[JackBeck]

24. White people, regardless of their sexual orientation, really need to quit using these comparisons.

Specifically, though, when are White gays and lesbians going to challenge themselves to identify their unearned privilege as people who drive the current narrative within the LGBTQI movement?

Instead of reaching into the past and stealing imagery and rhetoric from the POC social justice movement when it's politically expedient in order to justify whatever examples they need to suit their current narrative for equality, can we at least get a show of hands of those who will commit to ackowledging their White privilege?

[Bluebear]

25. You know for politically expedient, not to mention pandering. nt

[boppers]

27. Doncha know, being gay is *just like* being black.

We used to get kidnapped from, uhm, lesbos and the rest of Greece, to serve as house slaves, right?

It's important to acknowledge similarities, and differences.

Does white privilege still exist? I'd say yes.

Does straight privilege still exist? I'd say yes.

[Bluebear]

45. Chill the fuck out and read.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=694562&mesg_id=694874

[boppers]

47. Sorry, I'm ignoring that author.

Pity.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. LOL!

[Starry Messenger]

31. You tell 'em Bayard! n/t

[Pab Sungenis]

32. You want us to stop using these comparisons?

Then please tell me why banning same-sex marriage is any more justifiable than banning interracial marriage was?

[Bluenorthwest]

39. I let Julian Bond do it for me. Is he allowed to speak?

"The Loving decision, which was a watershed moment in the civil rights movement, has deep implications today for gay and lesbian couples who want that essential freedom: to marry."

Feel free to read the full piece, by an actual advocate for civil rights. Bond speaks for me, while Donnie McClurkin speaks for the President. Shame Bond all you like.
Julian Bond on Prop 8:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-10-In-wake-of-Loving-decision-Prop-8-cannot-stand_n.htm

[justiceischeap]

49. My white privilege doesn't matter much if I can be fired from my job

kicked out of my home and can't get married in 44 states. Also, do you have degrees of white privilege? I'm a white woman (with a healthy mix of native american in my background), so I'm not nearly as privileged as a white or black man.

At some point people need to realize that there are parallels between the 60s civil rights movement, and inter-racial marriage, and equality for the LGBT*.* community. You may not like it but it just is and it would be stupid not to draw on those parallels. Why does the African-American community not want the LGBT*.* community to follow their successful example? What's the harm in the LGBT*.* community using the parallel? It takes nothing from the hard won rights that were gained from that struggle. It makes not rational sense to me but maybe that's because of my white privilege.

[phleshdef]

26. If it were made during the pre-civil rights era/Jim Crow laws era, I would've applauded it.

In that kind of historical context, those would have been very progressive comments for a President to make.

Gay rights is in a similar place now. This country just recently started accepting homosexuality as a mainstream normal, if the truth is known. I know how different it feels now compared to the early 90s and before. I remember how gay people use to be portrayed when I was a kid. I remember how controversial it was to even have gay characters on tv. I remember the nasty stereotypes regarding promiscuity and AIDS and all that stuff and I remember how socially acceptable it was in the mainstream to degrade gay people with those kinds of stereotypes. We've grown up tremendously since then and that was not all that long ago.

Aside from that, his statement is correct. Legal gay marriage is going to become a reality and its going to start on a state by state basis, as states do in fact have a lot of power when it comes to marriage regulation. This was the case with interracial marriage as well. The states that refused to recognize it were never forced to by any President or even Congress. It was the supreme court that ultimately decided it. I imagine that gay marriage will end up following the same path. That last bit by the way is every reason in the world to make sure we get Obama re-elected. Nothing will advance the cause of equal rights more than ensuring that any new supreme court justices that get nominated in the next 5 years are nominated by Barack Obama and not Mitt Romney or god forbid Rick Perry.

People just need to be patient. This society IS growing out of its anti-gay bigotry. Gay marriage WILL eventually be legal nationwide, and I'll bet it comes sooner rather than later. But this is an injustice thats been going on in this country for over 200 years.

[boppers]

28. FWIW, it used to be a lot more legal.

The country was founded on top of societies and cultures that already accepted GLBTQI as part of being human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

We're not "redefining marriage", we're going back to original marriage, and gender roles, found in the US.

[Pab Sungenis]

33. Civil rights in this country became a reality thanks to leadership.

The 19th Amendment didn't get out of Congress without Woodrow Wilson's arm twisting. It took four attempts in 1918 alone to finally get enough votes. Mississippi didn't ratify the Amendment until 1984, which means it would have taken 104 years of constant battling to get women the right to vote in every state.

Remember the term "Dixiecrat?" Do you know how it came about? Because in 1948 Hubert Humphrey put the Democratic Party on the spot with a Civil Rights plank in the platform at the Democratic National Convention. And even with our party split three ways because of it we still won. Because it was right.

And not to belittle the work of Dr. King, Malcolm X, the Freedom Riders, and everyone else involved in the fight, but if Lyndon Johnson hadn't twisted arms in 1964 then there would have been no Civil Rights Act and no Voting Rights Act. For that matter, the Poll Tax wouldn't have been repealed if Jack Kennedy hadn't pushed for the 24th Amendment to finally break the filibuster by Southern Democrats. Considering that Texas didn't even ratify that Amendment until two years ago and eight other states still refuse to, chances are they would still be using poll taxes to keep blacks from voting. For their efforts, Kennedy and Johnson lost the "Solid South," but it was the right thing to do.

Rights don't come from the government, they come to us by birth. No one's rights should be subject to the ballot box. There is no functional difference between saying that the right to marry has to be accomplished by state Legislatures and referring to the process as "States' Rights."

[phleshdef]

41. Interracial marriage became recognized statewide because of the Supreme Court, period.

Marriage is a different animal than other civil rights issues.

[TriMera]

44. How do you think those cases got to the SC? n/t

[Starry Messenger]

29. k&r

[amyrose2712]

35. EQUALITY FOR ALL!

[ImNotTed]

36. I love Monopoly!

Thread recced.

[Pab Sungenis]

37. No need to rec the thread because of my novel.

Just go buy a copy instead. :)

[Autumn]

52. I bought your book for my nook.

Just started reading it yesterday. I like it. Got any more and are you planning another? I like Ryan, a very smart young man. Keeping my fingers crossed for him.

[Pab Sungenis]

57. I've got two others

that I'm desperate to find an agent or publisher for, and one that I gave up and am hoping to adapt into a comic book limited series with the artist S.P. Burke. Don't know when or if I'll write a fifth.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pab Sungenis]

43. Civil Unions DON'T WORK.

We're seeing that right now here in New Jersey and other states it's been tried.

And even if they actually worked, without Federal recognition (which is why we need DOMA struck down) it's still second class citizenship.

And I don't give a shit what they accept or not; my rights are not dependent upon their acceptance.

[Union Scribe]

46. Can I just ask what the *.* is?

[justiceischeap]

48. It's like a wildcard search...

Instead of missing or forgetting all the letters that have been tacked onto LGBT (which I think are now i & Q), you just toss the wildcard symbol on the end and it covers the rest. :)

[Union Scribe]

50. Ah! Thanks. nt

[boppers]

51. Your grep is greedy.

A single * may have done the trick in line-based engines, but if you wanted it to work fast, grouped charsets could have worked better.

Minor programming note.

[Pab Sungenis]

53. There are so many letters nowadays.

It used to be just "gay." Then when that became associated mainly with gay men "lesbian and gay" or "gay and lesbian" came along. Then once bisexuals asserted themselves we had "LGB" which was then expanded to "LGBT: for transsexuals.

Nowadays we have people adding letters for intersex, questioning, and a lot of other groups. I don't want to leave anyone out accidentally so I include the wildcard search term.

[justiceischeap]

54. And sometimes the 'Q' stands for...

Queer, depending upon who you speak with.

[avebury]

59. K&R