It is possible to plan on voting for Democrats in both '10 and '12

[ruggerson]

on both the local and national level, right to the top of the ticket, and yet still believe that Obama is engaging in rank political cowardice on marriage equality, which many of us acknowledge is the most pressing equal rights issue of our era.

What is unfortunate is that because of this, and other issues, the trust factor seems to be eroding amongst many on the left and the center left, who ordinarily should be allies.

I realize this is the Democratic party, after all, and it't not like we haven't survived fractious differences throughout our history.

But the thing about those of us currently pressuring the President unrelentingly to change his course on marriage equality is that we are on the right side of history.

We are on the right side of history.

The President, and those who chronically defend his behaviour on this issue, with often an almost kneejerk animosity, are not.

[ProSense]

1. The only thing the President can do on this issue is work to repeal DOMA

The problem is that people are trying to equate his statement about civil unions with being anti-civil rights, which is preposterous.

His position on Prop 8 was clear "discriminatory and unconstituional."

The issue is going to be tested at the state level.

A repeal of DADT is in progress, but I see that post, while it has nearly 125 views, has only one other response.

[ruggerson]

3. The President has vocal chords

and could be an amazing champion of this issue, if he wasn't so mistakenly convinced it would damage him politically.

[ProSense]

4. He has to repeal DOMA, it is currently the law.

It's horrible, should never have been signed into law, but it is the law.

He has said he believes it's unconstitutional, and has pledged to work on its repeal.

[ruggerson]

6. Beyond the fact that he's done virtually nothing to work to repeal it

the larger, more salient point, is that as a political leader, he, to date, fails miserably in the bully pulpit. When he has his closest advisor come out on the day that Prop 8 is overturned in an historic decision, only to reiterate gratuitously that the President is opposed to marriage equality (while also opposing Prop 8), there is something deeply wrong.

[StevieM]

40. If it hadn't been signed into law, it would have still become the law, easily passing over

President Clinton's veto. That's where the country was at the time, and I find it hard to believe that Obama wouldn't have voted for it (as did Paul Simon and Paul Wellstone).

[polmaven]

37. I think, perhaps,

that when the president says he is "against gay marriage", that he may, indeed be against it on a personal and, probably a religious basis. I also think that he has no intention of imposing that personal view on the rest of the country, and would certainly not veto a repeal of DOMA. I wish that someone would clarify his viewpoint on that for the record.

[Ken Burch]

2. Yes...of COURSE it's possible.

In fact, I suspect most Dems would agree with you.

It would be different if, as an alternative, Obama were actually proposing a national "domestic partner" law that gave same-sex relationships in "domestic partner" status full legal equality with married couples. But he's not doing that.

In fact, I'm still amazed that the president HASN'T just admitted(at least to himself)that there simply ISN'T a "centrist" position on this issue and that it's pointless to try to find common ground with opponents of ssm, all of whom are at least objectively driven by bigotry.

[scheming daemons]

5. On the issue of marriage equality, the President is dead wrong in his public stance

Personally, I think that privately he is for marriage equality - but for political reasons doesn't want to reverse his 2008 campaign position just three months before an election. I think that's why he didn't comment much at all on the Prop 8 case. He doesn't want this issue to be what people are discussing during a midterm election year.

Is that cowardly? yes.


It is the one major point of disagreement I have with the President.


His publicly stated position is on the wrong side of history.




But he has nominated 2 SCOTUS judges who will vote to uphold the California decision if it gets to the highest court (and it will)... and that's really the only power he has in this case.

[vaberella]

21. Agreed and I can't stand it. On this---Obama is purely political.

I understand the reasoning. But I don't have to fuckin' like it.

[Exilednight]

22. The SC is not going to hear this case, unless ............

the 9th circuit overturns the current decision.

Many will not admit it, but the SC is political. For a case to even be considered, it will need the rule of 4. Basically, four justices have to agree to want to hear the case. So now, the four liberal justices have to make a decision if the case is overturned in the 9th. Do they take a chance and try and persuade Kennedy to their side, or do they leave it sit there and wait for another time. Odds are they will leave it alone for the time being.

On the side, the conservative judges will chalk this up as a victory and not vote to hear it. But if the 9th upholds the lower courts ruling, then the conservatives will vote to hear it. They have a five judge majority, and probably feel pretty confident about Kennedy.

I have read numerous articles about how the lower Judge's ruling was aimed at Kennedy, but the one thing this court has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is the fact that they are willing to backtrack on earlier rulings to decide an ideological issue. Kennedy's vote is not a guarantee to either side, but the safer of the two bets is that he will lean right on this issue.

[shraby]

7. I believe it's up to Congress to change laws..not the President.

Last I looked at their powers anyway.

[ruggerson]

8. Last I looked Presidents introduce legislation all the time

and champion and push things like financial reform, stimulus packages, healthcare reform and bank bailout packages.

Your answer is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about in the OP. It's entirely untrue and a cowardly defense of cowardly behaviour.

[Exilednight]

23. Exactly!

[jobycom]

13. Then why do we care who is president?

I'm sick of that meme. People blame the president for everything when they don't like him, then when someone they do like gets in office, they excuse any failure by blaming Congress. It's so goddamned ignorant it makes you want to scream.

The president is the single most powerful politician in the country. The entire executive branch is focused on one person, unlike the other two branches. The president from Washington until Bush was the single strongest influence on Congress and the legislation it passed. A strong president pushes Congress to achieve his/her goals, and works with Congress to get the most out of legislation they consider. When the president's party is in power, the president generally has great power to influence legislation.

So yeah, Congress passes laws, and the President sees to their execution. But through our entire history, strong presidents have worked Congress for what they wanted to achieve, and weak presidents have made up excuses about why they can't get things done. FDR didn't just sit back and let Congress save the world. He took charge and made Congress save the world. That's how a leader becomes great, and that's what Obama needs to do if he wants to truly change the world. He's doing okay now. He's doing some good things. But he has the power to do great, earth-shaking things of the type that shape the world for generations. Saying that he can't because Congress has the power to change things is how you lose that chance.

The people who think the most of Obama are the critics who push him to do more. The people who think the least of Obama are those of his supporters who argue that he's doing all he can. If there was some reason to think he was incapable of what other presidents have accomplished, I'd understand, but I don't see any such reason.

[treestar]

25. Are you saying you'd prefer a domineering person as President and a weak

Congress? So that Congress becomes irrelevant and for show, essentially? How about the judiciary? Should it be weakened?

The President in NOT more powerful than Congress or the judiciary. If he seems to be, there is something effing WRONG! Our freedom would be in real danger.

[onehandle]

9. This issue is going to SCOTUS where it will be decided once and for all.

And they will rule in its favor, because they they don't give a shit about right-wing social dogma, just in Corporations.

It doesn't matter what Obama says or does. He chose to play politics. He didn't have a say anyway.

[ibegurpard]

10. spot-on

you are so right

[scheming daemons]

11. He *DID* have a say

In the two nominations he made to the Supreme Court.


Not an insignificant thing.

[onehandle]

12. Those two and the two they replaced would have all voted the same way.

And so will/would the next and last one he replaces.

Net gain: 0

[scheming daemons]

36. Not if McCain had won in 2008

[Kahuna]

24. Yep. nt

[southernyankeebelle]

14. Right now there are so many more important issues that need to be solved. Please

forgive me if the Gays marriage law is on the top for me. Don't get me wrong I support gay marriage but I think pushing it now isn't a good idea. I think it should wait for Obama's reelection.

[QC]

15. So which basic civil rights are you being denied? n/t

[sandnsea]

17. I think that's not very helpful

I understand your point, but really telling people their family can just drift along with no legal protections is kind of appalling for a family to hear.

[sandnsea]

16. I think legal protection is the Dem Party platform

I actually don't think "marriage" equality is in there anywhere. I think the promise was equal civil rights, whether through marriage or some other method. Which of course hasn't been done in Congress, although there has been some movement with hospital rights and federal benefits.

Here's what I don't understand. Why isn't it possible to be infuriated at the slow movement on gay rights -- without totally making stuff up about every other issue that comes along?

Someone is mad about gay rights - therefore there's no recovery? Or therefore Obama is "Cheney's puppet"? Or is an imperialist? I mean can there be a little perspective here?

[ruggerson]

29. I agree with you

entirely about the perspective and welcome your comments.

Obama has done a lot of good things, including stem cells, two good picks for the USSC, his reasoned response to various crises, etc.

On the other side of the coin, there are also those who will stretch themselves into pretzels defending him on marriage equality, often angrily, when frankly there is no defense.

[Ozymanithrax]

18. You can always vote Republican and see if they change the law faster. n/t

[damonm]

19. K&R - well put!

[old mark]

20. Well, it would certainly get a lot less suport from the GOP-the way some of them

are talking now, they would start pubbing gays in concentration camps if ther were elected...in jesus name.


mark

[treestar]

26. I just do not see this issue as more important that the economy, the wars

and the environment. If that makes me a homophobe, so be it. I sympathize, but at the same time, this is NOT the number one thing on the agenda right now, and I would think that if I were gay.

The gays I sympathize with most are the ones born in places like effin Iran. Heck I'd be willing to go to war over that issue alone.

[QC]

27. So which basic civil rights are you being denied? n/t

[ruggerson]

28. no one seems to be answering you on that one n/t

[QC]

30. Funny, isn't it? n/t

[Prism]

38. Well, we were told "At least no one's in jail"

So an honest response probably isn't in the cards from that one.

The poster seriously said that in response to a gay wedding. Gays should feel grateful we're not in jail.

I don't hear that kind of thing even from most Republicans I know.

[ruggerson]

39. I can see a platform fight brewing for '12

over explicitly supporting marriage equality.

I have no doubt we'd lose even though the majority of Democrats support it.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. You need to point out where anyone but yourself

Claimed that this issue is more important than those others. That is a strawman deluxe. No one but you even suggested that issues of great importance could or should be ranked in some form. Why do you think that?
If you were gay, you would understand that equal rights is key to our personal economic survival and success. If you were gay, it might cross your mind when it comes to the wars, that gay people are trying to get equal standing to speak on those issues by serving equally in the military. Yeah, the community that is actually trying to serve and addressing loudly the deep flaws of our military at the same time does not care about war and peace. The issues are very separate, not at all related, they must be divided and then ranked in order of importance.
The fact that you imply without basis that the OP or other gay people are claiming that this is the number one, most important issue, simply for saying it is important to us and that the President is wrong, that is very disrespectful. That entire 'comparison and raking of issues' meme was yours, and yours alone, introduced with intention.

[bigwillq]

34. Granting equal rights to everyone

should be a high priority for everyone, especially those living in the most "free" country in the world.
No matter what the issue. Everyone in this country should have the same rights. Until they do, those people are NOT equal to all other people. That's sad.

All men are created equal....
Just not in America. :mad: :cry: :(

[DailyGrind51]

32. I'm voting "Dem" for national offices, but "Green" for local contests.

[Peacetrain]

33. I am sure as heck not voting for a republican.. and you can take that one to the bank..

:hi:

[LatteLibertine]

35. I will continue

to work towards marriage equality in a constructive manner and I refuse to be a part of helping Republicans return to power. There's too much at stake for too many people. I will get out to vote Democrat this November and in 2012.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Politicians are by their very nature cowardly

I don't disagree with you that the President is being cowardly on the issue of gay rights. I do, however, think you're naive if you expect a man who has invested so much in obtaining the highest office in the land to actually take the risk of leading the charge on an issue like this. You don't get to be President of the United States by leading on issues like gay rights. You get there by taking wishy-washy stances designed to appeal to people on both sides of the issue. JFK sat on the fence on civil rights until the issue got so hot that it wasn't politically advantageous to sit there anymore. That's exactly what Obama will do.