34
   

President Endorses Gay Marriage

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 05:46 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Andrew Sullivan's response is up

On a seriously off-topic tangent, I'm astonished that you care what Andrew Sullivan thinks. The last time I paid attention to him, he was your standard-issue, neoconservative dork: Iraq-war-toting, Bush-tax-cut-promoting,liberal-and-Muslim-bashing, Krugman-slandering, reality-denying, fraud-excusing. Are you telling me he has seen the light and started informing his opinions with evidence?


Big time.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 06:04 pm
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote:

I'm glad he finally got off his rear and said something; but, I'd have been much happier if he had done so a little sooner. Personally, I am sick of him only doing things when pushed up against the wall. He pulled the same stunt on overturning Don't Ask Don't Tell.

So, it's a victory of sorts; however, not something I'd go overboard with since he still hasn't made a push to make equality of all people something which is federally mandated. Until or unless he starts actually doing that, I will see this as nothing more than a political ploy.


Yeah, unlike all the action his predecessors took. Oh, wait...
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 06:05 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Well, let's hope incrementalism works better for Obama's gay-marriage policies than for his economic-stimulus policies. (So far, there isn't even a policy involved in the former, it's just his private opinion as a citizen and family father. Rolling Eyes ) And thanks for the update on Sullivan.


It isn't as if he can make paradigm-changing policy completely in a vacuum.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 06:06 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

sozobe wrote:
I think this is the way to do it -- start small, get more people realizing that it's not a big deal, and then gradually work up to the big stuff (like a Supreme Court ruling).

Obama didn't start small, he started by actively opposing gay marriage. Refer to pages 222--224 of The Audacity of Hope: He comes out (sorry!), in no uncertain terms, in favor of civil unions, but against marriage and against adoption. He announces his change of mind precisely when polls indicate that the majority of swing voters now favors gay marriage. Obama isn't "working up to" anything. He's following where swing voters lead him. (I relish the irony when I think of the big deal the 2008 Obama campaign made of Hillary Clinton's 'triangulating'.)


Yeah, he's so timid on these social issues, unlike all the other presidents, who moved the LGBT agenda so far before him. ?
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 06:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

snood wrote:

Opinions and assholes.


Some people's opinion is that others should be systematically discriminated against. I do believe that those people are, indeed, the assholes - and it's my right, nay, DUTY, to point that out.

Cycloptichorn

Duty. Riiiight.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 06:13 pm
@snood,
None of those presidents is running for reelection in 2012, so I don't see how that matters.

Obama's change of mind isn't big news about Obama, it's big(ish) news about American society and its changing norms. Obama has taken the safe position in Audacity of Hope (2006), and he is taking the safe position now. What has changed between 2006 and 2012? Only the location of that safe position. And now that it has, Obama is catching up with it.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 06:16 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

None of those presidents is running for reelection in 2012, so I don't see how that matters.

Obama's change of mind isn't big news about Obama, it's big(ish) news about American society and its changing norms. Obama has taken the safe position in Audacity of Hope (2006), and he is taking the safe position now. What has changed between 2006 and 2012? Only the location of that safe position. And now that it has, Obama is catching up with it.


It matters because its good to keep expectations in perspective. This guy can't do enough for some people.
dlowan
 
  4  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 06:18 pm
@Thomas,
All of that is likely true....however, I think it is HUGE that a US president has done such a thing.

We are far less puritanical than the US politically, but our PM has responded that she still will not support gay marriage.

0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 06:20 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:
It matters because its good to keep expectations in perspective.

That's fair.
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 07:31 pm
Some people have any idea how many legal documents are needed for a gay couple to attempt to have the same number of legal rights that a married couple gets with just a marriage license. And even then they would not be able to get all of the same benefits that come with a marriage license.

I’m proud I voted for Obama and I’ll be doing it again this year!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 07:34 pm
@Thomas,
It's certainly big news for the Democratic party. The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 was passed by huge majorities of both parties, and President Clinton promptly signed it on his return to Washington (he had been out of town when it was passed). All Republicans voted for it, with the exception of Steve Gunderson, a Representative from Wisconsin who is an openly gay man. Among the Democrats, in the Senate, it was passed by them 32-14 (one Senator being absent), and in the House, Democrats passed it 188-16, with 15 abstensions. (Voting record courtesy of Wikipedia.)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 07:48 pm
Rachel Meadow made two persuasive points a few minutes ago:
  1. It's irrelevant what presidents personally think about gay people. Lots of conservative presidents have worked to obstruct gay rights while assuring voters that they were personally quite tolerant of gay-ness privately. Should their private tolerance make you feel any better? No. So why should it matter when a more liberal president says it? It shouldn't.

  2. The relevant test of a politician is what he or she does about gay rights in the course of his or her work. President Obama aces that test. He has repealed don't-ask-don't-tell, extended federal benefits to same-sex spouses, refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court, and helped the GLBT community in many other ways.
Evidently, then, I have been too cynical about Obama. He's definitely one of the good guys.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 08:21 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.


Ask AAs how that worked out for them.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 08:33 pm
Don't worry too much about the vote by the people of North Carolina. Some liberal court will go through some tortuous false argument and rule it unconstitutional, thus disenfranchising the people of the state, as has been done before (e.g. Proposition 8 in California). Meanwhile other states will legalize it and you can crow that the people are coming around.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 09:31 pm
I tend to agree with rosborne's early post -- the net loss/gain in votes will be zero. Gay rights activists who've been less than thrilled with the Obama waffling on the issue, will now embrace him. Those who were on the edge for religious or other reasons will now abandon him. It evens out. No gain, no loss, imo.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 09:40 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas, was this the first time you'd heard these things about Obama?
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 10:41 pm
@snood,
I think it is the first time I've heard it stated that way: Watch what he does, not what he says. By that metric, no one should have any complaint that Obama does not fully support gay rights. Like Thomas, I've really been listening more to what he says, thereby missing the bigger picture.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 10:42 pm
This is just another stage in the evolution of Obama's incoherent stance on this issue, and I see no principled difference between the position he has taken and the one that Mitt Romney has articulated. Both would leave the ultimate decision on gay marriage to the states, which is a thoroughly unworkable solution so long as the states are free to ignore out-of-state gay marriages. Just because Obama is personally in favor of gay marriage is of little consequence, just as Romney's personal opposition to gay marriage (this week) is of little consequence. Regardless of their expressed personal preferences, their proposed policies are equally indefensible.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 11:21 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:
Thomas, was this the first time you'd heard these things about Obama?

No, but I had kind of forgotten them in the process of thinking about today's "I'm personally for it" statement. I continue to believe this part of the story is overhyped. In other words, what engineer said.
0 Replies
 
blueml
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 May, 2012 01:03 am
@snood,
I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 02:47:58