Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"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
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 08:29 AM
Original message
"Obama’s increasingly absurd gay marriage position."
From The New Republic



Disgrace
Obama’s increasingly absurd gay marriage position.

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.

My colleague James Downie has assembled a fascinating timeline of Obama’s statements on gay marriage over the past 14 years, stretching from 1996 to earlier this month, when the White House responded to a judge’s ruling on Prop 8 by reiterating that it opposes same-sex marriage. What the timeline shows is a pattern that can only be described as illogical and cynical. Obama argues that he is against gay marriage while also opposing efforts like Prop 8 that would ban it. He justifies this by saying that state constitutions should not be used to reduce rights. (His exact words: “I am not in favor of gay marriage, but when you’re playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about.”) Obama appears to be saying that it is fine to prohibit gay people from getting married, as long as the vehicle for doing so is not a constitution. Presumably, then, he supports the numerous states that have banned same-sex marriage through other means, without resorting to a constitutional amendment? If so, he might be the only person in the country to occupy this narrow, and frankly absurd, slice of intellectual terrain. Obama has also said he favors civil unions rather than gay marriage because the question of where and how to apply the label “marriage” is a religious one. This argument makes even less sense than his stance on state constitutions, since marriage, for better or for worse, is very much a government matter.

>snip<
More at the link, here: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/77154/barack-obama-gay-marriage-disgrace




Kudos to TNR for having long paragraphs that allow the substance of their stories to be conveyed in the legal 4 paragraphs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. Looks like you missed yesterday's thread > >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I've seen it posted 3 times so far but that's ok. It's my pony!
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Equal rights is a "pony", now - that's pretty sick...
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. Don't forget poutrage...
and pearl clutching...

and the one that pissed me off pretty bad: "PARANOID Pink TU-TUed Democrats"

Yup, supporting equal rights on DU and in the Democratic Party is now optional.

Name calling the gays, fine.

:eyes:


Sad, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. And let's not forget "little pet issues."
Nothing says dismissive like comparing someone's legal equality, access to health care, etc. to some petty little eccentricity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
area51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. +1 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
31. +2 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #5
23. I do hope you realize i was being very sarcastic . I suppose it
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 11:46 AM by jonnyblitz
is hard to tell sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. Sorry if I misinterpreted. But, yeah, with all of the anti-equality
folks coming out of the woodwork sometimes, it is hard not to react. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
18. Pardon me for not reading every thread on DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
61. Slacker
:hide::hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lilith Velkor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
24. Oh, it's YOU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Beat me to it +!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #25
35. !
:spray:

Well played. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
55. .
:spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sea Witch Donating Member (113 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
28. You aren't required to read them all
In fact you could pass by without making one patronizing or condescending remark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. Sounds to me like the President is saying the Constitution trumps
any individuals likes or dislikes. Nowhere does it "presumably" say he supports states banning gay marriage.

If these pundits could be honest, instead of inflammatory, they would stick to the quotes and let them stand instead of spinning them to meet their needs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. So when the President says that he is against equal rights for
gay folks we should just take him at his word. Right, I agree. Anyone who says that they do not support the rights of gay individuals to marry is saying that they do not favor equal rights for gay people - that is not "spin", that is the truth. But we have all known for a long, long time that President Obama is against equal rights for gay people - this is not news...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. He didn't say that. But you're going to try to hang it on him aren't you?
If he were against gay rights you wouldn't have seen anything done, and he has done several things for gay rights. Get off the cloud, this President will not stand in the way of gay rights, or any rights. Jeez.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. He has said that he opposes the right of gay people to marry.
That means that is is opposed to equal rights for gay people. You can spin that any way you like, but "equal" means "equal", and anything short of that is, well, not...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Let me know when he stands in the way of gay rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Whose Justice Department is it that's defending DOMA, etc.? (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
37. Window dressing and reach arounds.
He has done nothing of substance, and you know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
57. That site gives him partial credit for doing nothing on every
issue. If he says he'll sign a bill if it ever gets to him he gets credit for it being "in the works."

That means that other people have to do all the work to get the bill passed, without any of his political muscle or any of the help he could provide, without him working to rally support within the party as the head of the party. All he has to do is say he'll sign it if it somehow gets to his desk, and it's somehow "in the works" and he gets credit for that.

That's helping us? How?

Yes, saying he'll sign a bill is better than saying he'll veto it, but that's the lowest possible bar you could set. Is that really what you are willing to accept, and you would call that being supportive? You would call that providing help?

To all the rest of us that's sitting on his ass doing nothing, providing absolutely no help at all, and waiting to take credit for it after everyone else has done all the work to get something to his desk.

If he really supported equal rights for LGBT folks he'd be doing more than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
60. I see. He's hoping to do something substantial some day when it's politically convenient. (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. So if he is not actively blocking gay rights, that's a big deal?
That is the standard now for supporting equal rights? He isn't "standing in the way" of equal rights, so ...what? That is the most cowardly thing I think I have heard in a long while. He is strong in his not standing in the way of equal rights! Look out! That is almost a stand!

Jesus...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. He is actively extending rights to gays that they have not before had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. I'm on the side of gay rights.
It's personal, and I want it all for them. But I know it won't happen overnight. I'm a liberal, don't call me anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. rofl
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #12
21. Wow, I love how you talk about gays like they aren't people...
"He is extending rights to gays"... What rights? The right not to be marginalized? The right to be treated like everyone else? The right to walk the street without fear of some asshole gay basher?

Tell me, exactly what gives Obama the right to decide that gays should have or not have? What gives you or Obama or anyone the right to tell a gay person they can or can't marry? Or serve in the military?

This issue has gone beyond the point of absurd. There is actually a debate about human rights in America. Pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. rofl
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Ah yes, the group thing.
Have at it, the entertainment has arrived.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. What "group thing"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 04:27 AM
Response to Reply #32
64. I think he meant that we're all sex addicts looking for group action.
I have heard that from those who are upstanding.:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. Gays demanding equal rights is a "group" thing?
sorry, this straight guy believes in equality... there are no compromises on equality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
59. They are not Rights.
He is extending privileges that can be removed at any time. If they were rights, he would be putting it into law that all of us have those rights, and they can't be taken away from us.

As it is, those privileges are only being extended to select few who are lucky enough to work for the government, not all of us, most of those privileges were already in place because of non-discrimination policies already, so he's getting credit for re-iterating stuff that was already there. And because it is in place as a matter of policy, he could take it all way at any time. So could the next president.

Something give as a policy is not a Right.

We want real equal rights. Rights that are recognized by law, enforced under the strength and power of law, and can't be taken away from us at anyone's whim. That isn't what we got from Obama, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #10
22. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rebubula Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. Really???
Are you just being obtuse or is this trolling?


His failure to endorse the BASIC FREAKING HUMAN RIGHT of gay couples to manage their own lives (final life decisions, wills, medical decisions etc) IS standing in the way of gay rights.

Your failure to recognize this is confusing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
36. He can personally oppose anything he likes...
As long as he, as in this case, indicates that the Constitution trumps all personal feelings.

When he actually puts his foot down and says "no" instead of upholding the Constitution... lemmno... I'll be the first to jump on the Obama spank-wagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. What is the technical term for people who oppose equal rights for all citizens?
For instance, what would you call someone who opposes equal rights for black people, simply because they are black?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. That's not what I'm talking about...
I'm talking about religious beliefs. A lot of people have them, and they are welcome to them. Unless you want to instigate the mind police, what people think or believe is their own damn business.

What they cannot do, however, is impose those beliefs on others. This is what I'm talking about.

A church has every right to insist that no gays enter their space... what they cannot do is say that a gay person cannot do something that any other person can do.

I've tried to break it down into bite sized pieces for you... hope it helps.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. But you didn't answer my question..
What is the technical term for people who oppose equal rights for blacks just because they are black?

Note that the *reason* for their opposition to equal rights for blacks makes no difference as to the answer to the question.

I predict that you will not answer this question.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. They are racist...
That's not the same thing and you know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Same thing as what?
Opposing equal rights for homosexuals?

Why not?

Keep in mind that religion was used by many for a long time to oppose equal rights for blacks.

Kudos by the way for answering the question, I appreciate your honesty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. You aren't getting that people have the right to THINK what they choose...
But they don't have the right to act on everything they think.

Obama has the right to be personally opposed to gay marriage... as does the Pope... as did my 99.75 year old great grandmother. They absolutely have the right to feel as they do. They do NOT have the right to impose their religious beliefs on another.

When Obama stands in the way of gay marriage, as opposed to voicing his own individual beliefs in the matter, lemmeno.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. Sure Obama has a right to think what he chooses..
But that doesn't mean he gets a pass on being called exactly what he is.

Just like people who think blacks don't deserve equal rights don't get a pass on being called what they are either.

Not to mention that Jesus the Christ never once said anything about homosexuals but He said quite a lot about hypocrites, something you would think a Christian like Obama would know about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. What exactly has Obama been hypocritical about?
He's stated his beliefs, but will still uphold the Constitution as promised. I don't see why the two must meld.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Obama's own parents would not have been able to marry in sixteen states when he was born..
Anti miscegenation laws were not overturned in the US until 1967.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation#Laws_banning_miscegenation

In the United States, the various state laws prohibited the marriage of whites and blacks, and in many states also the intermarriage of whites with Native Americans or Asians.<8> In the U.S., such laws were known as anti-miscegenation laws. From 1913 until 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced such laws.<9> Although an "Anti-Miscegenation Amendment" to the United States Constitution was proposed in 1871, in 1912–1913, and in 1928,<10><11> no nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was ever enacted. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that still had them.

The parallels between anti homosexual attitudes and anti black attitudes are glaringly obvious, it's impossible for me to believe that Obama does not see these parallels.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. And... please try to carry that to the logical conclusion I asked for...
I answered your question. It would be nice if you answered mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. It is hypocritical to be opposed to the marriage of others..
When you yourself have been the victim of similar attitudes about your particular minority.

As I pointed out, Obama would have been a technical bastard in sixteen states at the time of his birth because his parents would have been forbidden to marry.

Unless Obama personally believes a return to anti-miscegenation laws would be a good thing then he is a hypocrite in my view.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. No, that's not the definition of hypocrisy at all...
It's a real head scratcher, no question... much like how I'm scratching my head that the museum of tolerance has been so very intolerant about the Muslim community center.

If he had said he was going to uphold his personal beliefs above the Constitution, despite promising to uphold the Constitution, that would be hypocritical. He's not going backward on this. His actions are clearly better than his beliefs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
44. Do we have the right to go into churches, synagogues, temples, etc...
Around the world and demand that all those people cleanse their minds of the stupidity that is hatred toward gay people? Demand that they open their doors to all people?

If we want churches to keep their hands off our government, I think we need to think twice about what we want to try and force upon them. This is a very slippery slope... and too many here are missing the point. It's being turned into something it is not, and that is every bit as wrong as what you are accusing others of.

Thought police works both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Yeah, the thing is about the religious crowd, the Christian ones
is that if they were to practice their faith rather than demand that others do, we'd never hear about it at all. How is it exactly, that you got so right with the world that you are able to get around to the speck in my eye? How is it that folks keep casting first stones, an action Christ himself refused? Are you all without sin, that you can do such a thing?
This notiong that 'faith' is like a belt you buy to go with your shoes, and and now you get to announce that your prejudices are articles of faith. Well just so you know, when I hear that stuff, I run to the Bible and do a quick check list! And you know what? All I find is a bunch of failures, all of whom break dozens of 'rules' and 'laws' of their own damn faith on a daily basis, who dare to judge others which is in itself one of the major infractions of their own damn faith. They treat it as if it were an ashtray to gather their mental debris, not a thing they should actually practice. And they don't practice it. They talk about the speck in my eye. This much I know. And I know they were told not to.
No one wants to force a thing on any church, and you know that, but feel fine about using that right wing and utterly baseless fear based bazooka. Truth is, the Chruches who wish to be equal are not now allowed to be, and those are the First Amendment religious freedoms being abridged right now. Equality makes more religious freedom, not less, and you know this.
Show me a perfect Christian, and that one can judge me. Those are the rules of that faith, are they not?
What does St Paul say about women? Do you folow it, or even know what it says, or what? Because Paul is all you have for anti gay material in the NT. He's it. So those who do not follow his rules, they need to of course, stop with the yammering about the speck in my eye. For crying out loud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. You're preaching to the choir, Bluenorthwest...
As a recovering Fundy with four preachers in the family, two of whom are missionaries in foreign countries, I have those same damn arguments all the time. I just love fighting their bigotry with words Jesus gave them.

It is precisely the fact that equality makes more religious freedom that I win all those arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #45
62. Yowza
Righteous rant! :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
46. unless i remember wrongly
i think he said something along the lines of that he 'believes' marriage is between a man and a woman BUT if a bill comes across his desk that would grant marriage he would have no problem signing it as his personal views shouldn't come in the way of the will of the people.

Also of course that he is for civil unions that grant ALL the rights of marriage(not the current watered down civil union type), but thats another can of worms
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. Yep... that's how I read it too...
I don't see an issue. Quite frankly, I'm encouraged by those statements. That tells me he will always adhere to the Constitution... as promised. Isn't that what we want in a POTUS?

I think it speaks volumes about a person when they are willing to put their beliefs out there, and do the right thing... it flies in the face of his own beliefs. I don't see how anyone can disrespect that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sea Witch Donating Member (113 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
29. He is against gay marriage and for post poning gays in the military
Until he takes a few more polls and studies. Polls and studies which will probably end just before the next election cycle stats and then it will be too risky to remove DADT.

Call it whatever you want, say it as many times as you want and it still will not make him any less of a bigot in regards to this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
15. Heh. We thought we were electing FDR. We got Woodrow Wilson. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #15
48. Ouch.. That's going to leave a mark. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imajika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
56. Everyone knows what this is...
The President really supports marriage equality, but is afraid to be on the wrong side of the voters on the issue. Period.

Once it becomes clear the public has moved on the issue in support of gay marriage or don't care either way, Obama will suddenly be for marriage equality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #56
63. I agree.
It's all politics for him. And that's what makes it so disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. He's a politician and he plays on the highest level of politics there is
Edited on Fri Aug-27-10 06:42 PM by Hippo_Tron
You can't become President of the United States without making every single decision based on how good it is for you politically. It's simply not possible.

I should add that I agree it is disgusting but so long as we live in a democracy, it's never going to be any different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazyjoe Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
65. talks out both sides of his mouth, the very definition of coward.
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 Thu Apr 18th 2024, 06:08 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