Newsweek on 'Obama's Moral Cowardice'

[Bluebear]

Via Americablog: Jacob Weisberg thinks Obama "needs to find his principles":

Obama has had numerous chances to assert leadership on values questions this summer: Arizona’s crude anti-immigrant law, the battle over Prop 8 and gay marriage, and the backlash against what Fox News persists in calling the “Ground Zero mosque.” These battles raise fundamental questions of national identity, liberty, and individual rights. When Lindsey Graham argues for rewriting the Constitution to eliminate the birthright-citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, or Newt Gingrich proposes a Saudi standard for the free exercise of religion, they’re taking positions at odds with America’s basic ideals. But Obama’s instinctive caution has steered him away from casting these questions as moral or civil-rights issues. On none of them has he shown anything resembling courage.

This is Weisberg's take on Obama's and Prop. 8:

With the Proposition 8 fight, Obama has fallen short in a different way, by his reluctance to join an emerging social consensus. Obama had previously criticized California’s Proposition 8, the ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage, as “divisive.” But his official position—which no one believes he actually holds—is that he is against legalizing gay marriage. Americans are changing their views on this issue with inspiring rapidity. Judge Vaughn Walker’s moving opinion provided an occasion for Obama to embrace the extension of equal rights to gay people. Instead, he slunk mumbling in the other direction. How dismal that America’s first black president will be remembered as shirking the last great civil-rights struggle.

The White House hears these criticisms all the time. Apparently, they're ignored. What do the rest of us know? As we've learned, Team Obama has the smartest political and communications people in the world. That's why they're doing so well in the polls. Takes real geniuses to destroy the vaunted Obama "brand" and to bring him from 70% approval to the low 40s.

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/09/newsweek-on-obamas-moral-cowardice.html

[msongs]

1. sorry glbt's, your equal rights are subject to survey approval first nt nt

[Raster]

13. No shit! Thanks "fierce advocate."

And, oh yeah, it's just "one song" and "a two-minute prayer."

[w8liftinglady]

2. I am so disappointed in this.So many of my friends were looking forward to

a normal life with normal benefits-a rarity for glbt individuals in Texas.My best friend cried when he discovered there would be no quick changes for him and his partner of 19 years.
This is a real let-down.

[Me.]

3. Apparently This Thread Is Being Unrec

[w8liftinglady]

4. there are narrow-minded trolls on tonight-I rec'd

[mitchtv]

5. let me add one too

for my hubby

[NMMNG]

26. My wife and I both recommend this thread

:hi:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[emilyg]

9. True. k/r

[Raster]

15. Careful... they kill posts for using the "c" word.

[readmoreoften]

16. By c word do you mean moral Cowardice?

(nah probably not...)

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[QC]

56. +1

[boppers]

24. K&U

Exposing anti-Democratic Party opinions is a good thing.

[girl gone mad]

27. Party loyalty..

the last refuge of scoundrels.

[boppers]

29. Let me know when another party has significant representation.

Until then...

[Lorien]

35. Well, that's one hell of a reason for toeing the line. nt

[metapunditedgy]

46. I think you gave away too much with that post. You said:

"Let me know when another party has significant representation. Until then..."

Double-plus jawohl!

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Smashcut]

31. Rec to cancel you out.

[inna]

81. what a creepy post

[ruggerson]

90. aww

come on beepers, you can do better than that.

[Cherchez la Femme]

60. And this surprises you?

Why? :shrug:

[wickerwoman]

92. And by derailing the conversation like this,

you're giving them exactly what they want. Congrats!

[cordelia]

6. K & R

[Poll_Blind]

8. Well, Obama has spoken out on the mosque, albeit in passing. And...

...I believe he put the fire behind the lawsuit the federal government has against Arizona. They do have a lawsuit going, don't they? It just isn't in the news much, I guess.

On the gay marriage/Proposition 8 thing he doesn't seem to have a tongue at all.

I believe homosexuals should absolutely have the right to marry just like heterosexuals. But equal marriage rights are usually not at the very top of my list of things I want/need done in Washington. Even having admitted that, it makes me sad how the lesbian/gay community have been treated by the White House.

They're dumping the "fringe" and just going to Center. That all-important Center. This is all about 2012. There is no other reason for it. They worked over the Left to get in office and they're hoping to surf the Center into another term.

PB

[Raster]

14. They worked over the Left to get in office and they're hoping to surf the Center into another term.

No truer words...

[glitch]

39. They didn't have to trash the Left to keep the Center. Quite the opposite.

They're trying to take the Corporate from the Right, handing out some appeasement to sweeten their loss.

[bertman]

126. Poll_Blind, there's a HUGE difference in Leading the Nation and getting a

lawsuit going.

There's something called the Bully Pulpit that Rahm Emanuel has hidden somewhere in the back of the White House Storage Building.

[kentuck]

10. K &R

one more

[katandmoon]

11. K&R

[Starry Messenger]

12. k & r

[readmoreoften]

17. K&R

He's a Company Man. Greatest marketing campaign in history, though. Funny what is says: to win votes, present yourself as a progressive, use Cesar Chavez's phraseology, and mid-century leftist stencil art themes. Must be what people actually want. Then once you get it, pass your real right-wing agenda and play it like you're desperate to "win the center" so you don't lose elections: even though you just won elections on union slogans and leftist rhetoric.

[FreeState]

20. +1

But I'm not even sure that the President is doing this all alone, there are far to many people making excuses and creating cover for the President.

[lunatica]

51. It's funny how everyone embraces Democratic ideals just before elections isn't it?

Our Governator did that.

[Raksha]

57. That sums up the situation very well...we've been HAD!

I've known that for a while now, and like a lot of other people I'm pretty pissed off about it too.

[Bluebear]

63. 'Greatest marketing campaign in history, though.'

I will certainly give him that.

[Grinchie]

72. Great Marketing, but it's still a shit sandwich.

Now they are going after the Corporate Greedsters and MIC because they know that a bunch of people that trusted the marketing and actually bought said shit sandwich are going to be coming for their money back.

The Corporations are not going to know what hit them when the raging consumers start consuming things in patterns that defy to conventional models, and eschew their frilly products and slogans.

[G_j]

145. Must be what people actually want.

I agree, that is why he won.

[leftstreet]

19. K&R

[RainDog]

21. k&r

it has been repulsive to see Obama cave to bigots and CEOs.

[BlueCheese]

22. One argument with the piece.

Weisberg claims that nobody believes Obama is actually against gay marriage. I kind of doubt that--I think a whole lot of people think Obama is against gay marriage. That's the whole point of saying it, after all. Many of them probably use that to support their own similar beliefs.

[grantcart]

23. Jacob Weisburg mmmm let me see

Oh yeah Jacob Weisburg the blue dog Democrat who thinks that the biggest problem is deficit spending and the size of government



How might a Democratic president go about establishing himself as a limited-government liberal? As a younger, more idealistic journalist, I wrote a book trying to square my belief in federal activism with commitment to limited government. In the 15 years since, my advice hasn't much changed (or been taken). New Democrats and Blue Dogs aside, the party's congressional leadership has never really recognized that the problem of government excess and failure is grounded in reality as well as in the other side's distortions and misperceptions.

. . . .


There's also a risk of Democrats responding in a way that leaves behind more government than we want or need. Obama could help himself by letting people know he's worried about that danger, too.




Yep now that's a real voice of progressive courage, lol



http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/04/make-it-stop.html

[Major Hogwash]

28. Bush had real moral integrity, don't ya know. The National Enquirer had a full page article on it.

And it was very interesting because it had 15 pictures of Bush in poses and all of those pictures showed his moral bravery and integrity.
You could see it in his face, if you looked hard enough and squinted a little and then shut your eyes and thought "well, what does moral integrity look like?"

Of course, all of the captions below the pictures were a little thin on reality.

[olegramps]

33. Thanks for putting this in better perspective.

[ProSense]

48. They're coming out of the woodwork. n/t

[QC]

58. Weisberg never really loved him!

:cry:

[Scurrilous]

94. Fancy that!

:thumbsup:

[KakistocracyHater]

127. does the President have a Twitter account? He could tell us directly what's on

his mind. Did you(everyone here) read Kanye's twitter yesterday? I think it's a fast-track to relevance & what's really going on. Of course Obama would easily get more than a million followers, it can be done.

[Richard Steele]

30. Obama's legacy on EVERY important issue will be that "he slunk mumbling in the other direction".

As a bought-and-paid-for TOOL of Corporate Fascism,
that's about all he can aspire to being remembered as:
a slinking mumbler.

[Kolesar]

32. Go away...eom

[olegramps]

34. Could he have been more forceful? Yes. But your assessment is over the top.

[Lorien]

37. He was pretty adement about putting Bernanke back in charge

the insurance mandate, and gaining more funding and troops for the war in Afghanistan. Other than that yeah, there's not been much in the way of a strong position or action.

[howmad1]

84. Unfortunately, Obama may very well be:

The first and last black president this country will ever have. What a collosal disappointment.

[gophates]

36. I disagree with Obama;'s appeasement

But to accuse a black man who runs for and wins the Presidency of Tea Bag Nation of ANY type of cowardice is inappropriate.

[Lorien]

40. Most Americans are Liberal on the issues

only 17% of the Country identifies with the Teabag movement.

[gophates]

41. And that's the 17% most likely to take a run at a powerful man of color.

I see what you're saying but I think you have to give him props for running and winning in a country where loudmouth racists dominate at least half of the political discourse.

[walldude]

62. You certainly do have to give props for that but...

what happened? The left came out in force, we got this guy elected and we gave him majorities in both the House and Senate. He should have had the momentum to move the country back towards the left. But all we got was a slower move to the right. This should have been a historical presidency, instead it's more of the same.

[Grinchie]

74. I never saw a slow down in the Movement to the Right. It was apparent in the first 2 months

When one actually looks at policy, we have been galloping toward the cliff edge nonstop for the last 10 years already. Something is affot, and the only thing it could be is that the US Government is already aware of the forthcoming economic collapse and is keeping its powder dry when the millions of urban dwellers find that one day they cannot afford fuel to get to work, the store shelves are loaded with nothing more than Ding Dongs and Ho Ho's, disruptions in Water and Electricity, and are shocked to find that everything they depend on was based on Monopoly money that is now worthless, if they have any left at all.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[Mimosa]

142. Walldude, that's how i feel

I worked hard, contributed money to get Obama elected. he did have a 'bully pulpit.'

And yes, it does seem like more of the same. :(

[niceypoo]

49. Appeasement of the right is cowardice

...and stupid given that the end result is 100% predictable:

All GOP ideas included
0 republican votes garnered

Lather rinse repeat

[gophates]

50. I agree with that.

Don't agree with the cowardice thing.

Personally, I favor the kick-them-in-the-mid-section approach. Figuratively, of course.

[BrklynLiberal]

97. Actually APPEASEMENT is the perfect description.....

[LWolf]

38. k&r

[TBF]

42. Recommended. nt

[Kahuna]

43. Didn't you already post this? If not you someone else did and

it worked as flame bait. :banghead:

[VMI Dem]

44. ...

:cry:

[mitchtv]

53. well, I didn't see a previous link or post

I appreciated reading it. Is there some rule?

[Bluebear]

64. No, I didnt already post this, but 86 recommendations is hardly "flamebait".

Sorry :cry:

[rhett o rick]

68. Whats your point? If you dont like the post dont respond and kick. nm

[Bluebear]

95. Checked again, no, I didn't post it before.

[Forkboy]

99. Your feelings on this have already been made clear.

:banghead: indeed.

[Bluebear]

153. Has anybody else posted this?

[russspeakeasy]

45. Mr Obama has not done what I wanted, but to call him a coward?

That's a hard/impossible claim to make..

[Skittles]

148. it is moral cowardice to pander to bigots if you are not a bigot

[ProSense]

47. Oooh name calling.

Obama holds the same exact position he did when he ran for President. The same position Hillary ran on.

Was he a moral coward in 2008? Was Hillary?

The President has his personal opinion and he doesn't let it get in the way of policy. He has will sign the repeal of DOMA.

Fuck Jacob Weisberg.

[mitchtv]

54. Yes,

and yes both slippery politicians. Every win we've had on that issue, he felt it necessary not to congratulate us, but rather to reiterate his stone age position. Cowardly , maybe , maybe not, but treacherous yes.

[ProSense]

59. No

"Every win we've had on that issue, he felt it necessary not to congratulate us, but rather to reiterate his stone age position. "

He has never once objected to a win. Never.

[mitchtv]

75. as I said No congratulations

just reiterated his stone age position, which incidentall came in handy for Carly Fiorina, who used it in her ill fated debate with Sen Boxer.
(slunk away mumbling).

[dsc]

83. that isn't what the quote says

It says he didn't congraduate us for our wins. And he hasn't.

[Mimosa]

143. Obama has not been leading.

Prosense, you know it's true. Obama has been playing defense. In chess or in football that's the route to consecutive losses.

[sabrina 1]

93. Are you serious? He ran on lifting the ban on Offshore drilling?

I remember him slamming McCain on that issue.

I remember him slamming both Hillary and McCain on forming commissions to deal with the country's fiscal problems.

I remember him stating clearly that he was opposed to Mandated insurance, AND giving his reasons why.

I also remember him expressing his support for a PO and there is still video of that around, despite all denials the he did not.

He also ran on closing Guantanamo Bay, ending DADT and restoring the rule of law.

I also remember his promises to teachers, and his promise of an administration that would be transparent, then made deals behind closed doors with Big Business.

I could go on. The dissatisfaction with this administration is NOT because he is following through on what he ran on. If he were, his approval numbers would still be in the '60s or more.

[Forkboy]

100. You and your fucking memory!

Why do you hate America??!!!

[sabrina 1]

123. Sorry!

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

152. You never really loved him!

:cry:

[formercia]

52. Newsweek is a Moonie Rag. n/t

[Bluebear]

65. Any comment about the article?

[QC]

66. Newsweek never really loved him!

:cry:

[inna]

82. how so? i think you're confusing newsweek with wash times.

[Vidar]

55. K&R.

[JDPriestly]

61. First sign of c+++++++ - failure to prosecute those who decided

that torture was OK.

Obama took Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. He should know or be able to research the history behind the Fifth Amendment. He should know or be able to research the history of the rules against torture and the definitions of torture used by our own military.

Yet he refused to stand up for the values, for the universal human rights, that are embodied in our Constitution and incorporated into our military traditions. For shame.

I believe that Obama was trying to bring the country together, trying to avoid divisive issues. That's fine, but you unite people by inspiring them to pursue the highest ideals, not by condoning crimes and prejudice.

[grahamhgreen]

67. I'm not opposed to changing the 14th

Amendment to mak us citizens need to have one parent a citizen, as long as we change it to end corporate personhood by inserting the word 'natural' before person.

" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of NATURAL citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any NATURAL person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[okieinpain]

71. on this i have to agree. n/t.

[DeSwiss]

73. K&R n/t

[impik]

76. Two more years, then all will be better

You will all get your perfect "progressive" storming into the White House, and that guy with Moral Cowardice' will finally go home.


Fuck this all.

[Bluebear]

79. Nay, nay, it's only been 2 years! We have 6 more years of all-Democratic rule ahead!

All is well!

[Starry Messenger]

103. Bye! nt

[ClarkUSA]

78. I can't wait to read Weisberg's next op-ed titled "Hillary the Homophobe"

After all, Hillary opposes gay marriage and she supported DOMA during Bill the Homophobe's presidency:

Clinton opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions between members of the same sex. During her husband's administration, she supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a law preventing the federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." - Hillary Clinton, opposing same-sex marriages, quoted in The New York Daily News.

... Hillary Clinton was quoted by 365gay.com as saying,"I believe in full equality of benefits, nothing left out. From my perspective there is a greater likelihood of us getting to that point in civil unions or domestic partnerships and that is my very considered assessment."

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/HillaryClinton.htm

Meanwhile, Obama continues to receive 100 times the venom for not moving fast enough to repeal the very laws Clinton put his name on as Clinton does for signing those laws. Both Clintons are above reproach, it seems.

Gee, I wonder why? :eyes:

[Sapphocrat]

85. Because Obama is the President.

You can "What if?" 'til you turn blue, but Obama wanted the job, and now he's got it.

Why try to deflect from Obama's failings with Hillary's -- or Bill's, or those of the Man in the Moon for that matter?

The primaries are over, remember?

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[ruggerson]

89. Some people

like to relive the primaries over and over and over...

[ClarkUSA]

105. "Some people" evidence a double standard...

... when judging Bill Clinton/Hillary v. Obama re: positions on LGBT issues.

In other words, it's okay when the Clintons do homophobia but an unforgivable outrage when Obama has the exact same position.

[ruggerson]

112. Anyone who opposes marriage equality is homophobic to some degree

and that includes Hillary Clinton.

But why do you keep bringing her and her husband up ad nauseum?

Obama is the President, not either of them. He is the one with the Oval Office bully pulpit who can move this forward.

And he is the one whose position against marriage equality needs to change.

[ClarkUSA]

98. And Bubba was the president who was the gutless wonder who defended anti-gay ads in 1996 AND...

... signed DADT and DOMA into law while Hillary stood on the sidelines approvingly. Hillary wanted the job, too and many here are touting her for 2012 while turning a blind eye to her homophobia.

It's just instructive how there is such venom directed at President Obama when there is absolutely none aimed at the Clintons who created the anti-gay legislative mess Obama wants to repeal.

[Forkboy]

102. Is Clinton still president?

[ClarkUSA]

106. What's your point? He screwed over the LGBT community & yet according to "some people" he's a hero

... who's done more than Obama for gays. :wtf:

Hey, Bush isn't president anymore yet "some people" here want him tried as a war criminal.

Why can't bygones be bygones there, too, eh?

:sarcasm:

[Forkboy]

107. I could ask you the same thing.

Why bring Clinton into this conversation at all? Do you agree with Obama's stand on gay marriage or not? That question has fuck all to do with Clinton, so why bring them up?

I know the answer already, just curious if you have the guts to say it.

[ClarkUSA]

109. I made my point perfectly clear. There's no need to be uncivil and curse at me.

Here, reread this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9077217&mesg_id=9080704

Have a nice evening now! :hi:

[ruggerson]

115. You still haven't answered Forkboy's question

Do you believe in legal marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans?

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

120. I note a distinct lack of answers.

You have a nice evening now yourself, knowing that you couldn't even answer simple questions, and that anyone reading this thread can easily see that cop out for what it is. :hi:

[Sapphocrat]

124. Yes, yes, you did make your point perfectly clear. n/t

[NMMNG]

88. Obama is being held accountable because he's the president

Or is there some alternate universe where Hillary was elected in 2008? :shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

110. Oh please... the double standard here re: the Clintons v. Obama on LGBT issues is staggering.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

122. I had no use for either Obama or Clinton on this issue.

I held them both to same standard all along. Did you?

And let me ask you one more time....do you agree with Obama's stand on gay marriage or not?

[Forkboy]

101. I can't wait for people to stop defending a politician over equal rights.

[ClarkUSA]

111. And I can't until ALL politicians are tarred with the same venomous brush over equal rights.

[Forkboy]

116. I look forward to you doing so.

Send me a PM to give me a heads up when that process starts.

[NMMNG]

119. ROFL!

:spray:

[ClarkUSA]

125. Au contraire. "Some people" consistently perform the one-sided venomous tarring of Obama...

I merely am the one pointing out the Clintonian double-standard of said "some people".

[Forkboy]

129. Going to answer my question sometime tonight, or should I make reservations?

I merely am the one pointing out the Clintonian double-standard of said "some people".

Yeah great, what a hero you are.

Anyways, now that we got that out of the way, do you agree with Obama's stance on gay marriage or not? This is only the third time I've had to ask. Try answering this decade, before I've lost all my teeth and hair, will you?

[ruggerson]

130. What does the non-answer tell us?

[Forkboy]

133. It tells me one, or possibly two, things.

One, that Clark agrees with Obama on gay marriage.

Or two, that Clark doesn't agree with Obama on this, but cares more about Obama's well being than he does equal rights.

I can't think of a third option.

[Forkboy]

150. Kick for Clark.

[NMMNG]

118. GODDAMN IT!1!1!1

Why, oh why didn't George Washington sign that LGBT rights bill? Why? Damn him to hell! He was never an advocate for our rights!1!1

Satisfied now?

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[democracy1st]

91. K & R will read later thanks

[BrklynLiberal]

96. Sad situation...REAL LEADERSHIP is so desperately needed......

[JerseygirlCT]

104. Have to agree

I need to see a whole lot more audacity. Without it, the hope is sort of worthless.

[npk]

108. Here's the thing:

Obama, like most presidents, rarely get involved in issues that each state defines differently, to some degree or another. There is no right to marry in the US Constitution. Therefore, to a degree and based purely on text, there is no civil right at issue here. Yet of course to any one that is gay, the issue is to them a civil rights issue. The courts however don't look at it this way, or at least they haven't until recently. Marriage is basically a legal contract that is entered into by two legally consenting adults, of consenting age. Only a court, usually of county ordinance can classify or dissolve such contract. The state of course has the powers of making sure that each person has the right to marry, as long as they qualify to marry.

In 1967, when Virginia disallowed a black man to marry a white woman, the Supreme Court of USA ruled that this was a violation of of the "Equal Protection Clause." They made this ruling because the issue was based on race. Basically if a white man had the right to marry a white woman, then a black man must also have the right to marry a white woman, and vice versa. The thing is, the Supreme Court only looked at the issue of race in this case. Not the issue of what constitutes a marriage. Virginia already, like most states back then, had established that in order to be married, and officially recognized as being married under the law, that one party had to be a man and one party had to be a woman.

In most states when you fill out an application for a marriage license, you read the same verbiage.

While the majority of Americans want equality in marriage, just as I do, this issue always ends up getting thrown into the presidents lap. While I do think Obama should take more of a stance on this issue, it really is a moot point. The overwhelming majority of the country already supports gay marriage. The people that are standing in the way are the legislatures at the state level, which Obama has absolutely no say or influence over. Obama could come out into the Rose Garden of the White House lawn everyday and demand that each state adopt fair and equal marriage laws for all people, but this would be like shouting during a tornado.

Any change that happens must happen on the state level. It is up to each to state make their own marriage laws. The best hope here is that US Supreme Court establishes that anti-gay marriage laws violate "Equal Protect under the Law." If they establish that, it would, just like in Virginia, make all states have to adopt new marriage laws. Again though President Obama can do little to speed this process up, his person or political views on the issue aside.

[Sapphocrat]

128. In what country do you live?

Or should I ask: On what planet?

The courts -- specifically, THE Court -- considers marriage one of the most basic fundamental civil rights we (or rather, some of us) have.

"The thing is, the Supreme Court only looked at the issue of race in this case."

Meaning... what? That you're born black, but being gay is a choice?

"Not the issue of what constitutes a marriage. Virginia already, like most states back then, had established that in order to be married, and officially recognized as being married under the law, that one party had to be a man and one party had to be a woman."

So, are you of the school that says gays already have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals -- we are free to marry a member of the opposite sex?

"The people that are standing in the way are the legislatures at the state level, ..."

Not in California. Do your homework.

"...which Obama has absolutely no say or influence over. Obama could come out into the Rose Garden of the White House lawn everyday and demand that each state adopt fair and equal marriage laws for all people, but this would be like shouting during a tornado."

Funny, but President Obama seems to have an awful lot of influence when he puts his full weight behind something he really wants. (Hint: Congress. Health insurance bailout.)

"Any change that happens must happen on the state level."

That will be news to the dearly departed Mr. and Mrs. Loving -- and to all of us who were finally granted the right to privacy via Lawrence v. Texas, not to mention every woman finally "given" the right to deem whether or not her body was her own via Roe v. Wade. (You want more? Brown v. Board of Education is a good one. Want more? Just ask.)

There's a running theme of contradiction throughout your post, but this is the most glaring:

"Any change that happens must happen on the state level. It is up to each to state make their own marriage laws. The best hope here is that US Supreme Court establishes that anti-gay marriage laws violate 'Equal Protect under the Law.'"

Well, which is it? Are you a "states' rights" advocate, or do you believe it should all be up to SCOTUS -- despite the fact that you believe "the courts" do not "see" marriage equality as a civil-rights issue, in which case there is no point in leaving it to SCOTUS?

By the way, if the real problem is that you do not believe that marriage equality is a civil-rights issue, just say so. You'll be wrong, but you'll be honest.

You're right about one thing: There is no right to marriage in the United States Constitution. By that logic, then, heterosexuals have no more "inalienable" right to marriage than gay and lesbian Americans -- in which case, the onus to prove they are "worthy" of marriage should be on heterosexuals, before even one heterosexual attempts to deny us that right.

IOW, you go prove you have an irrevocable right to marriage. Throw an initiative on your state ballot. When you're shot down, file a suit in district court, then go to your region's circuit court of appeals, and all the way to SCOTUS. Prove you have any right to marry anyone. I dare you to try -- and if you don't, well, then, I guess you figure you're "owed" marriage by default, due to... what...? you and your partner having one penis and one vagina between you? :shrug:

Somehow, I don't think that penis-vagina thing is going to find support in the U.S. Constitution, either.

Look, I know I'm coming down hard on you -- but I won't apologize for it. You are proffering opinions uninformed by facts. While I am not a lawyer, I am one of the millions of gay Americans whose lives are impacted on a daily basis by leaps to incorrect conclusions based on half-truths, quarter-truths, and 1/1000th-truths.

If you need some help understanding the issue before you offer such uninformed opinions again, I'll be happy to lead you to plenty of authoritative sources.

Just don't ask me to be patient or nice about it; I'm fed to the gills with people who have no idea what they're talking about, but keep on talking anyway.

P.S. Don't get me started on Obama and his interference in state issues -- he does it when he wants to do it, and doesn't when he doesn't. Here's a good one: "Paterson Says He Will Run, Rejecting Call From Obama," New York Times, September 19, 2009

[npk]

132. to be clear

"Not in California. Do your homework."

And California is one state that was successful at the state level, which was my entire point. California isn't respective of the entire country. Other states have to work their legislature in the same way as California, Iowa, Massachusetts and other states have. See my point on how it's a state thing.

The courts -- specifically, THE Court -- considers marriage one of the most basic fundamental civil rights we (or rather, some of us) have.

I agree. What I actually said was the The US Constitution doesn't grant marriage as a right, expressed or inferred. THE Court has recognized the importance of marriage as civil rights issue and principal bedrock of our society. That still doesn't change the fact the Federal government doesn't bestow marriage rights to any state or populous for that matter.

Meaning... what? That you're born black, but being gay is a choice?

You are putting words in my mouth. I was simply commenting on what the central issue was in the "Equal Right Clause" that was established as a precedent by THe court, at that time, and what is also commonly referred to with arguments made today.

Well, which is it? Are you a "states' rights" advocate, or do you believe it should all be up to SCOTUS -- despite the fact that you believe "the courts" do not "see" marriage equality as a civil-rights issue, in which case there is no point in leaving it to SCOTUS?

To be absolutely clear, I am on the side of GLBT community. I have always been. I, like you, wish Obama would take more of an advocates approach. The only point I was trying to make is that Change has to come first at the local level. People need to pay more attention when they feel out their ballots in local state races and who they put onto the legislature. Most peoples lives are far more affected by what their state legislature does, than by what President Obama or Congress does. If you want to see equality for gay-right, which I do, you have to start getting the bigots, small minded people out of your state legislature. Obama can only do so much, if he was doing anything at all, which I get what you are saying that he isn't. Point well taken.

Or should I ask: On what planet?

The big blue one I hope. LOL

You're right about one thing:

1 out of whatever aint bad.

There is no right to marriage in the United States Constitution. By that logic, then, heterosexuals have no more "inalienable" right to marriage than gay and lesbian Americans -- in which case, the onus to prove they are "worthy" of marriage should be on heterosexuals, before even one heterosexual attempts to deny us that right.

I couldn't agree more with you. Some of the worst marriages I can think of have been heterosexual marriages. Some of the most honest loving relationships I have seen have been have been same sex relationships. Unfortunately our, and by our I mean country- not to imply that I am gay, states and local legislatures get to make most of the laws that are not clearly spelled out in the Constitution and left up to the state to make. Unfortunately these laws impact our lives more than most people realize. That is why it's so important when you vote, not to overlook important local congressional races, like a lot of people do. Many people who make up State Legislative bodies in most states are hard headed, bigoted, small or closed minded or influenced by powerful special interests groups. Once many states can get rid of these people, more progress will be seen.


Furthermore I am sorry that the President has been less than a true advocate for many people who spent hours helping him get elected. I wish this wasn't even an issue any more. Unfortunately it is still an issue. Keeping the Presidents feet to the coals are important, but it is also important to put as much pressure, if not more, on you locally elected leaders. For the latter group hold more of the cards, at this moment, than does President Obama.

on edit: spelling typo

[npk]

137. Also

Al those cases you mentioned were challenged until they made it to the Supreme Court. The same thing must happen here. I believe that denying a gay couple the right to marry is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, that is clearly defined by the US Constitution. But the case must be challenged on those grounds, that as the law was challenged in California. Each State must go through the same process, until one case makes it to the Supreme Court and new case law can be enacted, and marriage laws can then be redrafted, correctly.

My point is that Obama will not have neatly as much of an effect on this, as state courts, state government, and state politicians will have. Just look at California. You could make the argument that Prop 8 was overturned without any help from Obama, and largely it was. Once this goes before the Supreme Court I believe that THE court will declare that marriage laws, in states that don't allow gay marriage, are unconstitutional, and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

[indepat]

113. The way to win friends and influence voters: suck up to pubs who will never be won over and f**k

over and desert your base. Priceless brilliance. :P

[RetroLounge]

117. K&R

All hope, no audacity...

RL

[MadMaddie]

131. Yawn, one only needs to look at the author of this article

to understand where he stands.

[Forkboy]

135. Do you agree with Obama's stand on gay marriage?

I note you didn't really comment on the article itself, just the author. So, are equal rights something you support, or not?

Or will you chicken out like every other person I ask this of? :shrug:

[MadMaddie]

146. So to set the record straight (pardon the pun)

I am gay!

I honestly believe that Obama is waiting for a case like Prop 8 to get pushed to the Supreme Court or better yet the Supreme Court lets the last judges ruling stand that says prop 8 is illegal. This way he can say the law of the land says this.....

I think it's politics that causes him to respond the way he is responding. Is it my desired response no but that's life.

I am not happy about DADT but it's the military and the military moves slowly. I served as an Army Reservest and my whole family has served in one branch or another.

[Forkboy]

149. I appreciate your reply,

but tonight turned out to be the night that I don't give a fuck about reasons or excuses why what's wrong is ok to be wrong anymore.

In light of tonight's developments I'll say thank you for replying, in all sincerity, and leave it at that.

[Bluebear]

136. Yawn, what's your stance on marriage equality?

[MadMaddie]

147. Due to the fact that I am gay I would like to see it happen

in the near future. I am fortunate, I live in the state of WA and we have domestic partnership and are granted all rights as married couples have.

I believe marriage is a civil act that is performed by the courts and due to that I believe we should have marriage equality. The only way that will happen is if the Prop 8 or other similar case gets to the Supreme Court and makes it the law of the land.

The Author talks about a lot more than marriage equality, I didn't focus on that because that is not my only gripe with the article.

[Bluebear]

151. Thank you. Also see this thread, pointing out how we don't have social security survivorship

so we are not granted all rights of married couples. Thanks for answering.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9072265

[ruggerson]

138. What is your position on marriage equality?

[donheld]

134. Is it just me, or does it seem Obama never takes a solid stand on anything? EVER.

[laureloak]

139. Obama is a reconciler, peace maker, negotiator, not a dictator.

When did we start treating the POTUS like he was a monarch? And why is the media whining because he doesn't act like one?

[Bluebear]

141. Peace maker???

lol

[Mimosa]

144. Bush 41 lost because of the word 'wimp'

Word to Obama.

[RandomThoughts]

140. They are probably trying to get him to point his direction.

By making stuff up.

To occupy some news cycles, and to create meme


The establishment want the Democrats to look like Islam, some commentators fall into that trap because they don't understand that many people of many religions think other religions are pure evil.

So anytime a conversation can be turned to topics of moral actions,especially based on issues like gays or religion, the establishment likes it. It helps energize the base without discussing what is going on in politics or economics, or even foreign policy.

Since it does not talk about the money the establishment steals every day from the working people.