Should he?
Does he gain or lose politically? (That's really the question.)
How can he rake in votes just by seeming to care about the rights and interests of gay people? Not even seeming all that much — he's against same-sex marriage! — but just by stirring hopeful feelings and looking like somebody who cares. Well, he's already done it once. Why shouldn't he believe that what worked once will work again?
May 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
166 comments:
Nice Star Trek reference there.
You be the judge:
(1) California, Prop 8
(2) the Miss USA debacle
(3) every state that has voted on gay marriage has voted it down
(4) the gay vendetta resulting from Prop 8 in California
(5) see ZombieTime's blog entry on the gay festival in San Francisco
Nothing will bring America closer to putting an end to the gay agenda juggernaut than Barack Obama taking this on.
This is great news.
And he is the first president to set aside tickets for gay families to attend the White House Easter Egg Roll.Because quotas keep the little people happy.
If you're a Democrat, its enough to want to help people in your heart, even if your policies lead to the deaths of millions.
If you're a Republican, it doesn't matter how many people you help, if even one is hurt, you are a nazi and wanted them to die.
Once you accept this, all these kind of hypocrisies make a lot more sense.
First Paul spooks about the "gay agenda juggernaut"....nice turn of phrase Paul but unless it is in your living room with placards, no one else sees it...but then again you see a lot of things no one else can see.
And then we come to Dark Eden said...
"If you're a Democrat, its enough to want to help people in your heart, even if your policies lead to the deaths of millions."
So somehow DE stirred gays into what I am assuming is his anti-abortion stew. It's a leat there DE...but I'm sure you have your reasons...not many, not well thought out, fairly silly, goofy even...but they are yours.
There you have it...anything doing with Obama and gays and 1/2 the responses are nonsensical. Gotta love this blog.
And he is the first president to set aside tickets for gay families to attend the White House Easter Egg Roll.
Even Lincoln didn't think of that.
hdhouse wrote "it's a leat there".
No idea what that is supposed to mean, but when one is a liberal, one's made up words mean what you wish them to mean.
re: leat.
I would guess leap. The placement on a qwerty keyboard of t vs. p means the wrong hand typed the letter.
If you used your reasoning skills, you could have figured this out. It's not hard.
I remember during the Vice Presidential debates when Biden gleefully announced his and Obama's rejection of same-sex marriage. It would have been amazing if Palin had been able to do something more than meekly agree.
Forget about the whole marriage issue. I never hear Republicans talking about allowing gays to die for their country or allowing gays to adopt children other people abandoned. I also never hear them voicing support for coming out and being able to live openly as a homosexual, or trying to stop violence against homosexuals, or supporting gay families.
Instead of any of this, Republicans just stand there and meekly agree with whatever the Democrat said, so what does Obama have to worry about?
The NYT is so out of touch.
Obama’s White House is as gay (if not more so) as any WH in a long time.
All they need to do is tell Obama to federalize marriage, and they'll get what they want.
Once viewed as another power grab, he'll go for it, sure as shootin'.
Centralized control, it's the opiate of the left.
Althouse loves to press the meme that Obama is no better than Bush on gay rights because he has offered lukewarm opposition to same sex marriage. Gay rights is not just about marriage.
Bush supported kicking servicemembers out of the military for being openly gay. Obama opposes it.
Bush supported amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same sex marriage. Obama opposes it.
Bush supported criminalization of same-sex sodomy. Obama opposes it.
Bush opposed including sexual orientation in hate crimes. Obama supports it.
Bush opposed the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Obama supports it.
Rhetorically, Bush used his bully pulpit to instill fear of gay families. Obama speaks out in favor of equal rights for gays.
In symbolic measures, Bush used his position to do things like refuse to allow gay families to participate in the Easter Egg Roll. Obama included gay families among the participants.
I won't give Obama a pass on following through on his promises, but it is absurd to suggest that Obama is not really committed to supporting gay rights because he has said he opposes same sex marriage.
(3) every state that has voted on gay marriage has voted it downExcept Maine and New Hampshire. Unless you're talking only about plebiscites.
Lear would be a lot smaller error from leat than leap is, one key.
A close diagonal possiblility is leaf.
Anti gay marriage is for marriage not against gays.
Get your own word.
How many people, hdhouse, would you guess have died early because of poverty since 1965?
From 1947 to 1965, poverty (as defined by the current constant-dollar income level) declined 0.89 percentage points a year on average; the correlation between the year and the poverty rate had an r value of -0.98, and poverty was on a path to extinction in 1984. Then the Democrats pushed through the War on Poverty . . . and the average annual decline in poverty dropped to 0.00 percentage points a year, 1966-2006.
Yet despite these demonstrably counterproductive policies, which almost certainly have led to many earlier-than-otherwise deaths, Democrats get credit for caring about the poor.
The Onion has a video link ``First openly gay racehorse competes Sunday.''
There seems to be a WTF backlash.
@ Joseph. You make a lot of claims about what Bush personally supported. Until you link some proof of those claims, I suspect you are just talking out of your ass.
Proof and documentation and then we can discuss. Otherwise your gasseous spewing is just annoying.
I would assume his stance is more political than personal. That being said, I like Maine’s governor, Baldacci, responded in his statement – acknowledging his confliction and eventual turn from civil unions to marriage – bowing to the Maine Constitution and the separation of church and state.
Being that it’s a state’s issue, I’m not sure what Obama’s supposed to do. Sure there’s political alienation of some sub-groups from campaign statements, but hey, the question of fairness and equal protection seems to be backing up the change.
Maybe Obama should bail out and then take over management of the Miss American Pageant.
DBQ--All those positions are well documented. If you follow politics, you should recognize them as his positions. I don't have time to find links for all of them. Feel free to assume I'm "talking out of my ass" but those are his well-known positions, whether you agree with him or not.
" I don't have time to find links for all of them."
Heh.
(3) every state that has voted on gay marriage has voted it down
Well, things have changed.Seems the "gay agenda" is working on all the poor, poor, malleable straights. Deal with it.
If Bush has contrary views, it shouldn't be hard to find a quote that says so.
Stop being as lazy as you claim Joseph is being.
Politicians say lots of things.
Laws, rules, regulation, and funding are the actual expression; what gets done matters.
You seem to forget that Obama was a Senator who could have at any time introduced legislation supporting the things he supposedly supports.
Where is it?
I'm not obligated to refute Joseph's assertions, he must support them; them's the rules of debate, and always have been.
Oh, ZPS, you old heterophobe, a poll isn't a vote.
The President is just going to pay lip service to gay rights. So to speak.
The proof is in the pudding. He can change "don't ask don't tell" with a stroke of a pen. He hasn't. He won't. But he will talk a good game. Lip service.
This is where "pressing to engage ... on all things gay" gets you:
poygamy"...they are also “Dad, Daddy and Pappa” to the four-year-old quadruplets Carr sired with a lesbian couple..."
Sick.
In symbolic measures, Bush used his position to do things like refuse to allow gay families to participate in the Easter Egg Roll..
Well, a little research shows that that one is untrue.
I know, I know, you don't have time.
I apologize. I did misremember the Easter Egg controversy. The difference is that Bush chose not to address the fact that gay families showed up and Obama affirmatively invited them.
Unless you're talking only about plebiscitesPrecisely.
Pay no attention to the legislatures in these states.
Let us, the people vote in a plebiscite and watch as gay marriage goes down to flaming defeat.
"I did misremember the Easter Egg controversy."But everything else you said is absolutely true, right?
Hey Joseph, can you be the referee for the Giant games next season. I love the way you move the goal posts. Sweet.
Have I told you lately that the New York Giants are going to win the Super Bowl this year?
Pay no attention to the legislatures in these states.
That's our system. If you don't agree with it fine, but by the traditional U.S. model of representative democracy, there are two states that have voted in gay marriage.
The Prez won't press forward on gay rights. He doesn't want to see blood in the streets!
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/05/barry_warns_of_civil_war_over.html?hpid=topnews
Such a messy business, this identity politics.
"The difference is that Bush chose not to address the fact that gay families showed up and Obama affimatively invited them."
Or, one could say the difference is that Bush didn't see any reason to treat one group of "families" differently than any other, but invited everyone to the egg roll, while Obama basked in the moral sheen of "affirmatively inviting" the gay familes.
Which, as we can see, he didn't even need to do, since they showed up even despite that awful swaggering homophobe chimp in the White House. But feel free to scrabble for any crumbs of affirmation your Messiah deigns to drop to the floor.
So when does he repeal DADT? Tomorrow? 2010? 2014?
Pogo, I'm just saying a much better way to question a statement is, rather than saying someone is full of it, is to hold up a piece of information that contradicts the original statement.
Prove it does not further debate.
"Why shouldn't he believe that what worked once will work again?"
Because many Obama voters are cheap dates who put out and keep going back for more no matter how poorly he treats them?
The chances of the President ending DADT is another unfortunate casualty of global warming. It's seems that hell will not be freezing over any time soon.
'Prove it' does not further debate.
Half of debate is accepting the terms, at least as I learned it. And I do not accept Joseph's terms (he has since admitted one of his claims was false).
If one guy states you say X and Y and Z, it's not up to me to refute that, it's his job to offer at least some tangible evidence, especially when the issue is so contentious.
That is, assumptions are not accepted on face value.
The difference is that Bush chose not to address the fact that gay families showed up and Obama affirmatively invited them.
True, but I'm not sure how much difference that makes. Bush basically treated them like any other family. Time was, that was all they wanted.
One could also point out that Bush ignored opposition from his own side for doing it (rightly so, in my view). Obama's making a big deal out of his "inviting" them seems like pretty cheap grace in comparison.
He can change "don't ask don't tell" with a stroke of a pen
No, he isn't dictator yet, or 5 justices of the SC.
If the Democrats would please publish the list of Approved Victim Classes so that in the future all open invitations have a special subheading for the special people that deserve special invitations made especially for them, I would be much obliged.
Obama Pressed to Engage... on all things gay.
An official White House photograph of President Obama slipping Rahm Emanuel the tongue would probably buy him another eight months or so before he has to get down to business.
Last time I checked the President doesn't create laws, Congress does.
On all of the items Joseph Hosvep listed, Obama would sign the bill in favor of gay rights and Bush would have vetoed it.
Bush even promised to veto hospital visitation rights for gay couples. Bush also promised to do everything in his power to imprison gay people for having sex in the privacy of their own homes.
But yes, Ann thinks Bush and Obama are equivalent on gay rights. Makes you wonder if she's ever even talked to anyone who is gay about these matters. . .
Anyway, it is now up to Congress. They have to repeal DOMA, DADT, have gays covered by hate crime legislation, have gays added to anti-discrimination laws, etc., and let's see if Obama signs them.
Obama has already used the word "gay" publicly. Bush, in his entire 8 years as President, never mentioned the word "gay" in a speech.
But he is the Commander and Chief and he can issue orders and directives and the Armed forces will salute and say "Yes sir."
But he won't do that because it is more important that he care deeply about then he do anything about it.
It is pretty much the same as abortion for supposedly pro-life Republicans. They will swear up and down that they cared deeply about it but they won't do diddley because it is more important that the cut up the swag then that they stand up for their supposed principles.
Welcome to the NFL.
Pogo--Yes, it undermines my credibility that I misremembered one issue. I apologized as soon as I saw that was a mistake. But I don't think the other claims I made are really contentious, except the question of whose rhetoric is more sympathetic to gay rights, which I suppose you can debate (and offer citations) endlessly.
The other issue some might take exception to is Bush's support for criminalization of same sex sodomy. In 1994, he said he would veto any legislative action to repeal the Texas statute making sodomy a criminal offense. You can argue that he wouldn't believe that today, but he took a pretty aggressive position on the issue in 1994 and never recanted as far as I can find.
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26683.html
That's right Joseph. He never recanted on wanting to imprison gay people.
He also was adamantly opposed to civil unions throughout his entire Presidency.
"But I don't think the other claims I made are really contentious"
It's precisely because "...I suppose you can debate (and offer citations) endlessly" that the others are in fact contentious.
Trooper is correct.
Obama could end DADT today if he wanted to.
Why hasn't he yet done so?
For the same reason that he'll "close Guantanamo" without actually closing it.
The distance between campaign speech and deeds is vast.
Troop, Pogo, Ralph is right.
DADT is federal law. Of course it was passed by a congress controlled by Democrats and signed by that noted homophobe Bill Clinton. Other than that, Democrats have been very supportive of soldiers who are gay.
Thank you MM. hdhouse needs a net mommy, and you will do just fine.
Well, since the country is swaddled in peace and runaway prosperity Obama has nothing else to do, so he might as well focus on gay issues.
I will be interested to see if he shows at the Scout Jamboree next year (Clinton boycotted 1993 and attended 1997 - no more elections).
Speaking of being fully "disengaged::
Time Magazine is reporting - burying rather - the news that Joe the Plumber, also known as Samuel Wurzelbacher, is quitting the GOP.
Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, tells TIME he's so outraged by GOP overspending, he's quitting the party -- and he's the bull's-eye of its target audience.
But he also said he wouldn't support any cuts in defense, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid -- which, along with debt payments, would put more than two-thirds of the budget off limits.
Maybe he'll run for President as an Independent Moron.
Dark Eden said..."If you're a Democrat, its enough to want to help people in your heart, even if your policies lead to the deaths of millions."
The deaths of millions??
Say what?
Obama cannot end DADT. At least not without Congress presenting a repeal bill to him.
And it would be absurd for Congress to debate DADT at this point in time, when the economy is front and center, because the Republicans are certain to filibuster it, and to accuse Obama of caring more about gays than the unemployed.
I'm gay, and I have absolutely no issue with DADT repeal being repealed one or two years down the road, having the military do a 6-month study first, then a congressional hearing, etc. This issue almost wrecked Clinton's Presidency, and there are political realities you are dealing with. Obama is politically savvy - deal with it.
But if it's not addressed by 2012, I could not support the Democrats.
I'd bet a lot of money that Obama will get DADT repealed before 2012.
I'd bet a lot of money that Obama WON'T get DOMA repealed.
But gay groups should definitely put pressure on Obama to deal with these items.
"DADT is federal law."
He has ignored bankruptcy laws already, so what's the difference?
"When the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
Oh, ugh; another Jeremiad, another dead thread.
(Forgive me, professor, for I have sinned.)
Geeee, why can't we go back to the good ol' days of little Georgie.
That way we can concentrate on one thing: The fiasco in Iraq.
The intellect and energy Obama has injected into the administration just drives you wingnuts crazy...and boy, is it FUN to watch.
And keep in mind, YOU only represent the 35% of America that doesn't approve of the job he's doing.
if you're gonNa snarK, be cleVer, or be amusing. Don't be neither.
Pogo - Why do you never have anything of relevance to add?
You're entire schtick is based in nothing more than whining about me or how Obama is somehow damaging your way of life.
Do you even have a job?
Have you EVER even had a job?
Boo-fucking-Hoo.
I think this whole thing is funny actually. Keep making excuses for your man. He can help you get what you want. He can make it happen. He controls both houses of Congress and has a veto proof and filibuster proof majority of Democrats and Rhinos who would be happy to sign on. But somehow, the time isn't right for him to take a stand for your rights. If he really believed in them he would do something.
But I am sure you have an excuse. As far as I have seen so far your answer is that it is all Bush's fault. That certainly makes sense.
Pogo - "For the same reason that he'll "close Guantanamo" without actually closing it."
He's been President for all of about 110 days, announced the closing would take place...and it will.
Contrary to the planning process deemed realistic by many here, closing such a facility isn't something that can be done in such a short period of time. (And of course, you already know that, but just love to bitch and whine.)
It will take time because, again, contrary to what we've seen in the past from the previous administration, Obama and his administration will actually think about various aspects of the implementation.
He'll even discuss it with the proper parities to make sure the job is done right.
That's why he's so popular with real Amerccans.
Trooper - "But somehow, the time isn't right for him to take a stand for your rights. If he really believed in them he would do something."
Right.
110 days in.
Whining and bitching, whining and bitching, whining and bitching.
And you wonder why the Republican Party is in free fall??
Why the leader of your party is a fat racist, bigoted radio host?
Take a wild guess...
Maybe Obama should say something like this: I am a Christian, and I am a politician. Politicians pose on all sorts of issues . . . .
MadisonMan wrote: "Prove it does not further debate."
If the contested point is a negative (i.e., "He never....") that is correct.
If the contested point is a positive, "prove it," or more to the point, "that statement is false," is the essence of debate.
"Prove it" is always anathema to secular progressives who think "to debate" equates with "to bullshit."
The fun just continues. It's the calendars fault. It’s the fault of a radio personality. Look over there that’s the reason he can’t do anything. There just never seems to be enough time to do the right thing.
When it’s time to stand up and be counted, vote present.
It’s inspiring really.
Trooper York has never spoken to a gay person about gay rights either.
Bush spent his entire Presidency demeaning gay people, trying (successfully) to make them second class citizens in this country. And he had such disrespect for gay people that he couldn't even mention the word "gay" in 8 years, despite the fact that he was taking away our rights.
Obama has used the word "gay" in almost all of his major speeches. He treats gay people with respect, and he is comfortable around them.
And yes, small things (such as acknowledging that gay people exist) do count, and most gay people are willing to give Obama some time to deal with gay rights.
I bet he is even afraid to vote for Adam Lambert.
But that's Ryan Seacrest's fault.
Obama and his administration will actually think about various aspects of the implementation.
Seems more like re-thinking.
This is getting to be a habit with Obama. Reap the publicity benefits of declaring to do something, then not bother with the follow-up. Just like with telecom immunity, "no lobbyists", 5-day public postings on legislation, Bagram, etc.
Trooper York has never raised a pinky in favor of gay rights.
So why should gay people listen to Trooper York's advice about how to best advance gay rights?
"Secular progressives ... think 'to debate' equates with 'to bullshit.'"
For example, here's Jeremy, et al., trying to dominate the thread with his bs (e.g.,Rush Limbaugh heads the Republican Party).
I see he/they appear[s] today in one of the dumber incarnations. So much for the discussion.
Hey downtownlad you don't know me so don't presume to make judgments. I don't have to quote gay people and make up any claims about what they think. That’s Luckyoldson’s game. I am sure that gay’s are over the lot on this. Some are outraged that nothing has really changed in any meaningful way and some want to give him more time and make excuses like you. The facts are the facts and all your plea bargaining and excuse making won’t change them. He has the power to make the changes you want happen. To start the ball rolling. To lay the groundwork. You just won't admit that your guy is just shining you on. He is going to do as little as possible as late as possible. If he does anything at all. Except vote present. I thought you moved to Thailand not Dreamworld.
Actually I do know your Trooper York.
I know you enough that you can't talk about gay rights, without making another disgusting "gays are pedophiles" inference, like you just did about me.
Trooper - "Some are outraged that nothing has really changed in any meaningful way and some want to give him more time and make excuses like you."
110 days in.
Why hasn't everything been done?
What's the hold up?
Duh.
I'll say it again.
Trooper York has never raised a pinky in favor of gay rights.
Never.
So his advice to the gay community is IRRELEVANT. And we will ignore it.
downtownlad said..."Actually I do know your Trooper York."
You can say that again.
Trooper and others here try to come off as reasonable, open-minded people, but most are really homophobic and bigoted.
Constantly railing on gays and their "demands" or brown people who are somehow destroying America.
You know...the "big tent" people who think white heterosexuals are the only ones allowed inside.
Meanwhile, legislation to add gays to hate crimes legislation is moving through the house.
Republican Congresswoman, and people who support them (like Trooper York), react to this hate crime legislation by claiming that Matthew Shephard's murder was a "hoax".
Nice.
Anyway, I expect this legislation to pass soon, and for Obama to sign it. And Trooper York will whine about it when he does.
elHombre said..."For example, here's Jeremy, et al., trying to dominate the thread with his bs (e.g.,Rush Limbaugh heads the Republican Party)."
I'm not trying to "dominate" anything, dickweed.
If Rush isn't the leader of the party...tell me who is.
Even Joe The Plumber quite.
I am on your side in this downtownlad but you refuse to believe that. I think DADT is foolish. There are gay people in the military and they are brave soldiers and don't deserve to be treated the way Clinton set it up.
I know one of them in the Fighting 69th who recently retired. She didn't deserve anything but honor because of her service. She is a great American and I am proud to know her and call her a friend. Now is the time to change it but you want to throw up a smoke screen and designate who can support you and who cannot. Good luck with that pal.
Bush even promised to veto hospital visitation rights for gay couples. Bush also promised to do everything in his power to imprison gay people for having sex in the privacy of their own homes.In reality, President Bush was criticized for leaving open the possiblity of civil unions, which would allow hospital visitation rights for gay couples, sharing of health benefits, and allowance for having sex in their own homes.
And I thought you had said you moved to Thailand. If you didn't then I appolgize. I must have misremembered that and did not mean any implication in any way. I appolgize if anyone took it that way. That was not my intent.
Politicians pose on all sorts of issues . . . .
We've already seen his nipples. I'm not one to talk, but he could use some implants.
fc. Krupke said..."This is getting to be a habit with Obama. Reap the publicity benefits of declaring to do something, then not bother with the follow-up."
110 DAYS IN.
And are you also including the Bush promises of not being a "nation builder" or that he would be a "compassionate conservative?"
Show me a business model based on making all of the changes over a period of 110 days...while dealing with a group of people as expansive as Congress and 100's of million American citizens who have a wide variety of views and can provide input and even VOTE on each and every measure suggested.
Your right wing whining is just that: whining.
Obama will be President for four years. I'll have the chance to judge him when his term is up. Not after 100+ days. So far Obama seems quite competent, but who knows. Time will tell.
I gave George W. Bush a fair chance, and supported him fir the first three years, until it was obvious that he was incompetent.
Man - it must be tough being a wingnut ideologue. 50 days ago they were saying that Obama is a failure because the market was down 20% on his watch. Now suddenly the stock market is booming, and now they have to pretend the stock market doesn't exist.
That's what happens when you're grasping at straws.
Geez - let the guy try and govern for a few years, and we can judge whether he succeeded or failed then.
Bush spent his entire Presidency demeaning gay people,
Like this, from 2004?
"'I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so,' Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions."
By the way, does Bush get partial credit for being "comfortable" with transsexuals? I mean, they're part of the coalition, right?
And downtownlad, you will have to go a long way to find anyone who is more homophobic and bigoted than Luckyoldson/Michael/Jeremy. I don't recall you calling him out on his repeated slurs. I guess they don't count. Good luck to you.
You find your allies where you want them I guess.
Trooper York said..."The fun just continues. It's the calendars fault. It’s the fault of a radio personality."
Other than it only being 110 days into the new administration, and whining about why everything hasn't been done, the calendar has nothing to with anything.
As for Rush, I'll ask you same question I posed before:
If Rush isn't the leader of the GOP...WHO IS?
Apology accepted Trooper. I did not move to Thailand. But people like to throw that out there, as a slur that gays are Pedophiles.
And I apologize to you if I misjudged you.
But read my last post - it is insane to judge a President this early.
I am NOT a person who fawns over Obama and thinks he is perfect. I think he's smart though, and he listens to a lot of intelligent people before making decisions. Decisions, which so far, seem to be competent ones.
I see him as a technocrat. And yes, a politician - they all are. And me thinks America needs a technocrat right now.
Not to say that Obama won't be a disaster, or that he won't throw gays to the side (wouldn't surprise me).
But I'll judge him when his first term is done. The legislative process is notoriously slow - I get that.
Trooper - "And downtownlad, you will have to go a long way to find anyone who is more homophobic and bigoted than Jeremy."
That is bullshit.
Just because I tell bigots like yourself to blow me or ask if you're dating someone you agree with on literally every topic of discussion doesn't mean I'm homophobic or bigoted in any way.
It's just fun.
And when your "leader," Rush, said Americans were supposed to bend over and grab their ankles because Obama was President, you certainly didn't jump on him for being homophobic or bigoted.
And when he said Americans are kowtowing to Obama because he's black you didn't call him a racist.
You and others here love to pick and choose your targets, always based on the same worn out right wing "group think" attack strategy.
You could erase 90% of the monikers here and wouldn't be able to tell the contributors apart.
Obama winning and being so popular is driving most of you absolutely crazy...and I'm loving every minute of it.
Ofc. Krupke,
No - I don't give Bush any credit for that. His statement was completely misinterpreted. So Bush said that if a state chooses to have civil union for gay couples, then that law should be followed?
So freaking what. Bush still OPPOSED those state laws allowing civil unions.
Guess what - I also think that if states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, that those laws should be followed - and that gays should not be allowed to be married in those states. But guess what - that doesn't mean I support those laws!
Appolgy accepted downtownlad. I hope that the brave soldiers who serve our country will soon be able to serve openly. I would expect them to conform the regulations regarding public displays of affection and personal sexual relationships in exactly the same way as the rules govern heterosexual relationships, no more or no less.
110 DAYS IN.No need to yell.
The telecom immunity thing is from Obama's Senate career before he was President.
The 5-day posting for review was supposed to be for any major piece of legislation, but for the stimulus plan (inarguably the most major piece of legislation of the Obama administration) it was NOT done.
And the point is, that was something Obama HIMSELF said he was going to do. Same with the much-ballyhooed lobbyist "ban". Tell me, how many days does he have to be in office before we can hold him to his own stated policies? Let me know cause I want to mark my calendar. :)
Maybe he shouldn't promise major changes to national security policy like he has for Guantanamo if he has no idea how said changes would be implemented, or even if they are a good idea.
As for Bush's "nation building", there was an event in late 2001 that put the kibosh on that.
So freaking what. Bush still OPPOSED those state laws allowing civil unions.Another quote, further down in the same article:
"States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."
To have "rights like others"? Are those the words of a hater? Are these?
Bush also makes a point of separating the word "marriage" from legal structures that allow visitation, etc.
Let me just say this: If Obama doesn't repeal DADT AND DOMA by the end of 2010, I will not vote for him in 2012. That's a promise.
Yes, I'm giving him some time, and this is because there are much more important things for him to be dealing with right now. Throughout the campaign he hinted at repealing these hateful, homophobic things, and I fully expect him to do so. If not, he's toast.
And please, for all of you saying that Obama doesn't support gay marriage, get a grip. He does in fact support it, and he already said he did (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/01/chicago-paper-r.html).
stirring hopeful feelings and looking like somebody who cares.
That's exactly the right approach, politically. Lots of people want to "look like somebody who cares" about gay issues, but they don't want to actually "engage" them because, well, ick.
And please, for all of you saying that Obama doesn't support gay marriage, get a grip. He does in fact support it, and he already said he didWas he lying then or is he lying now?
downtownlad said...
And it would be absurd for Congress to debate DADT at this point in time, when the economy is front and center, ...
Jeremy said...
That way we can concentrate on one thing: The fiasco in Iraq.
Ok, which is Obama? Focused like a laser, or walking and chewing gum at the same?
You know, I really can't think of any other topic where I have seen so many people hope that the politician they support is lying.
Except torture of course.
ZPS wrote: "If Obama doesn't repeal DADT AND DOMA by the end of 2010, I will not vote for him in 2012."
I respect you for that pal. I voted against my Republican senator because I was angry about his voting record. It felt good and I look forward to doing it again.
Trey
ZPS, here is President Obama stating his views on gay marriage to Rick Warren.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U
You decide if the statements are contradictory or not.
Trey
Obama should press for the repeal of DOMA and DADT -- it would placate his constituency and (special bonus) it would actually be the right thing to do.
Jeremy wrote: "I'm not trying to "dominate" anything, dickweed.
If Rush isn't the leader of the party...tell me who is."
Of course you're trying to dominate the thread. That's why you post at a higher rate than other commentors, ass breath.
Nominally, Michael Steele heads the Republican Party. The fact that he appears to be a weak and ineffective leader does not cede to you or the other lefty douchebags the authority to make your own appointment.
How odd that your question implies otherwise.
I don't know where Joseph Hovsep up there is getting his information on Bush's position on gays unless it's from the voices inside his own head, but the sense I got from listening to Bush speak directly on the subject when asked in interviews was near total indifference to their uniqueness and his worst crime against them an utter refusal to recognize their *snap* fabulousness.
Let me just say this: If Obama doesn't repeal DADT AND DOMA by the end of 2010, I will not vote for him in 2012. That's a promise.
I’ve never liked twins myself.
Take Romulous and Remus for example. How grotesque (I bet Maxine would say)
Hey, couldn’t Obama appoint Siamese twins and get two votes out of one appointment?
Preferably a straight twin and a gay twin ;)
…and I fully expect him to do so. If not, he's toast.
You See? this is what I'm talking about.
If Rush called Obama a toast you never hear the end of it ;)
Hey Lem, is Manny Rameriez taking female hormones because he wants to change to the other team?
I mean other than the Dodgers.
If Obama doesn't aggressively push for the repeal of DODT, shame on him.
If DODT's not gone by 2012, and ANY gay votes for a democrat, shame on them.
The time for letting yourselves be played by the democrats is over. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying vote republican--I don't know if I'll ever do that again. But for godsakes, don't give the democrats your vote unless they give you some major payback while they're in power.
Hey maybe Manny wants to change his name too!
Tranny Rameriez.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I mean how does taking a female hormone enhance your performance in baseball. I don't get it.
Now in ultimate fighting, sure no doubt about. Any husband who has a wife with bad PMS knows that stuff would make roid-rage look like happy pills.
downtownlad : But yes, Ann thinks Bush and Obama are equivalent on gay rights. Makes you wonder if she's ever even talked to anyone who is gay about these matters. . .
Trooper York has never spoken to a gay person about gay rights either.
-Dear Althouse, I think Obama and Bush are almost equivalent on gay rights.
-Dear Trooper York, I would have said exactly the same thing you did about Obama.
Happy now downtownlad?
My prediction is that DADT is going to fall, at least in its current form. If it continues to exist, it will be only for situations where males and females are not put together for similar reasons - possibly some combat type units. Places where there is a high level of forced intimacy.
I think that there is evidence that for most military type jobs, homosexuality is irrelevant, and, indeed, sex is much more relevant.
I think that if 75% or so of military jobs were opened up to openly Gay people, both sides would ultimately be mollified. Open Gays could rise up through the ranks, while the young homophobes in the actual trenches won't take their homophobia out on their openly Gay brethren.
And then, maybe in another 16 years, that can be addressed.
People are always so negative on these issues.
I'm happy to live in a time and place where people like myself are fighting for the ability to die in the name of our country.
We live in a golden age. God bless America!
Well Jason it is important that America keep up it's bitch slapping, hair pulling and scratching eyes out capabilities to be sure we don't fall behind our adversaries.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Well Jason it is important that America keep up it's bitch slapping, hair pulling and scratching eyes out capabilities to be sure we don't fall behind our adversaries.
Mr. President, we must not allow a fabulousness gap!
Don't forget loaf pinching.
If we sent Titus over to Somalia those pirates wouldn't stand a chance.
Hey Lem, is Manny Rameriez taking female hormones because he wants to change to the other team?
Yea, He changed his name to Money Ramirez. So far he's Dodged the hormones controversy.
Ann, your gay commenters are mucking up your comments section. Almost always a fun place to go, until they get all riled up, and can only post comments about one side of one issue. Some of them are quite intelligent (others, not so much)when their comments are on something on something other than "you and your ilk want to kill all the gays", but they get awfully tiresome when they get on that track.
Hey Trooper I see Sotomayor is from the Bronx..
Does this mean we are going to have two Yankee fans on the bench? (I think Scalia is a Yankee)
Making the Yankees over-represented in the Supreme court.
I'm changing my mind ... I'm against Sotomayor again ;)
When do we get to vote on that Amendment to the US Constitution outlawing gay marriage in America?
I'm in favor of choice and I'd like to cast my vote.
Buford wrote: "Ann, your gay commenters are mucking up your comments section."
I must disagree Buford. The vast majority of the openly gay commenters here are models of decorum and sagacity.
DTL mucks it up for everyone, as does Jeremy. It has nothing to do with them being gay. Well, at least DTL, I have not read enough of Jeremy's drivel to opine about his sexuality.
Trey
I heard Jay Rosen is sitting on photographs of Sotomayor making pasteles at the park.
He’s waiting for her to get nominated to release the incriminating pictures ;)
(sorry you have to be from NY to get that)
Hey Lem, her only problem is if she is caught munching on a fish taco in public. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
You see then he has to throw her under the bus. It's only 100 days in man, he can't stand up for his principals. A filibuster proof Congress is not enough.
Next stop Crazytown.
TMink said..."DTL mucks it up for everyone, as does Jeremy. It has nothing to do with them being gay. Well, at least DTL, I have not read enough of Jeremy's drivel to opine about his sexuality."
Gosh, if we could all just be as intellectual as yourself...wouldn't that be grand?
A tad full of yourself...?
He married a woman who looks like a guy in drag.
Isn't that enough for now?
Lieutenant Sandy Tsao. Sandy is a Chinese American woman and army officer based out of St. Louis, Missouri.
Sandy also sent a heartfelt letter to President Obama urging him to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).
An excerpt from her original letter in January reads:
Today is Chinese New Year day. I hope it will bring good fortune to you and your newly elected office. Today is also the day I inform my chain of command of who I am. One of the seven army values is integrity. It means choosing to do the right thing no matter what the consequences may be. As a Christian, this also means living an honest life.
In closing, she wrote:
We have the best military in the world and I would like to continue to be part of it. My mother can tell you it is my dream to serve our country. I have fought and overcome many barriers to arrive at the point I am at today. This is the only battle I fear I may lose. Even if it is too late for me, I do hope, Mr. President, that you will help us to win the war against prejudice so that future generations will continue to work together and fight for our freedoms regardless of race, color, gender, religion, national origin or sexual orientation.
Obama sent her this hand-written response:
Sandy - Thanks for the wonderful and thoughtful letter. It is because of outstanding Americans like you that I committed to changing our current policy. Although it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action) I intend to fulfill my commitment. — Barack Obama.
It's all so utterly silly. Assorted queers were on very solid ground when they stuck to a libertarian argument. After all it's nobody's business what my SO and I do at home, or shouldn't be, which I why I opposed all manner of anti-'sodomy' laws.
The moment, however, that people comprising one or two percent of the population -- look at participation rates in corporate same-sex partner benefits -- begin demanding not only special treatment, but affirmation, they've not only lost me ... they've gained an active opponent.
Kids at school do not need "Heather has two Mommies," and ten-year-olds do not need to be encouraged to consider their sexuality.
Homosexuality is an aberration out on the 3-sigma-plus part of the tail. Therefor to call it "normal" reveals a childish intellect, as does calling it "evil." It simply is. Shut up and deal with it.
There are far more important concerns in life.
I recently sent a heartfelt letter to President Obama urging him to repeal his destructive TARP and auto bailout policies.
Dear Mr. President,
We have the best market in the world and I would like to continue to be part of it. My mother can tell you it is my dream not to serve fries in our country. I have fought and overcome many barriers to arrive at the point I am at today. This is the only battle I fear I may lose. Even if it is too late for me, I do hope, Mr. President, that you will help us to win the war against socialism so that future generations will continue to work together and fight for our freedoms regardless of race, color, gender, religion, national origin or sexual orientation.
Obama sent me this hand-written response:Pogo - Thanks for the wonderful and thoughtful letter. It is because of outstanding Americans like you that I committed to changing our current policy. Although it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action) I intend to fulfill my commitment. — Barack Obama.
P.S. You are so screwed.
Ha! Pwned.
Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said..."It's all so utterly silly. Assorted queers were on very solid ground when they stuck to a libertarian argument."
We'll be sure to pass that on to all of our "queer" friends and relatives.
How much would you like to bet you yourself have a "queer" relative?
Homophobe.
Oh, look...POGO tried to make a funny!!
Nothing original, just the same old "we hate Obama" bullshit from the right.
And it's exactly why you fools won't win a majority or the White House for decades to come.
Lack of intellect.
"A tad full of yourself...?"
It beats being totally full of shit by a mile! You will have to trust me on that.
Trey
TMink said..."You will have to trust me on that."
You've said nothing that would lead me to do so.
You just post the same right wing "we hate Obama" or "Obama isn't doing what we want" or "Obama isn't doing things fast enough" bullshit almost everybody else posts.
We've had eight years of the most inept and corrupt administration in our nation's history and all you hear here is whining and bitching because Obama hasn't accomplished everything he said he would in his first 110 days.
Show me a company that inherited the kinds of problems and massive debt Obama has...who turned things around in the first 110 days.
*Oh, and the stock market was up more in April than any time over the past nine years. And I bet you haven't invested a dime.
Holy cow - Many Ramirez.
Now I see what you were talking about Trooper.
I hate to say it, but good.
Bueno que le pase.
Moneygrubbing sob.
This is going to hurt the game at the worst time possible.
They should ban him for life.
Kiss the hall of fame goodbye.
The Obama enemies list; they can turn the IRS and the SEC on you and ruin you.
Nice little hedge fund you've got there. It would be a shame if anything happened to it.
Senior secured creditors don't voluntarily give up their senior position, would be a corroborating fact.
They paid a premium for that position in getting a lower interest rate.
Jeremey -- several, as a point of fact. To say nothing of numerous universities offering courses (or majors) in Queer Theory ... which proclaims, BTW, that all "gender" is a socially-constructed choice.Homophobe? No, I'm not afraid of same-sex types -- that is what a "phobia" is, after all -- I simply believe on the basis of ample statistical evidence in humans and other species that it is a highly aberrant behavior, and most decidedly not something to be promoted as "normal."
I also believe we shouldn't be promoting hetero-sexual activity to ten-year-olds, even if it is "normal."
As we used to say in New England, "if the cat has kittens in the oven, that don't make 'em biscuits."
Calling an aberration "normal," no matter how fervently or frequently, does not make it so.
What are the odds of The DADT being gone before Git-mo is "Closed"? The Crisis on hand now is not going to be wasted on a single political issue that does not flush out and put a few hundred billion more into the ObamaMob's coffers. That's the Chicago way. Ask Blago who taught him and the ObamaMob how money must flow, or there no governmental actions possible. About September 2012, the DADT and Gitmo closure will most nobly reappear in Obama's caring heart.
Obama cannot end DADT. At least not without Congress presenting a repeal bill to him.
And it would be absurd for Congress to debate DADT at this point in time, when the economy is front and center, because the Republicans are certain to filibuster it, and to accuse Obama of caring more about gays than the unemployed.
This is so pathetic it's hard to read without wincing. Just how long would it take? He pushed through a budget nobody even read in just a couple days. It really doesn't matter if the Republicans filibuster it or not - you need 41 Senators to filibuster a bill.
You know, I know, ever-damn-body knows Obama isn't going to change DADT because it's a political loser for the Democrats. You've been had, again (remember Clinton?), and you can't even admit it to yourself. Oh, but don't worry, next time, for sure, the Democrats will deliver on this promise instead of just using you for your cash and willingness to man the phone banks. Really.
Heard someone today comment that President Obama's support from the black community was about 90%.
I don't have the numbers, but the claim was made that the black community does not generally support gay marriage.
Wasn't it blacks and hispanics who voted in the CA, not just those awful Mormon moralists?
If President Obama pushes gay marriage could that possibly create a problem for him with the the black community, a significant support block?
Though since the black Christian community has given him a pass on his abortion stance, perhaps not ....
Just wondered how the politics figure in this issue with this man whose fixed values, if he has any, are difficult to ascertain.
It really doesn't matter if the Republicans filibuster it or not - you need 41 Senators to filibuster a bill.
That assumes there are no anti-gay Democrats, and of course there are.
But it is questionable if Republicans would even attempt a filibuster. If the bill actually passed it would give them a big issue to run against in 2010, 2012, etc.
Repealing DADT is doable, but it would be tricky and involve no small degree of political risk for O, which is why he probably won't do anything.
The key is to win the support of the military brass before approaching congress. If O could get the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the 4 service chiefs on board, that would give the Dem senators the cover they need to vote for repeal.
To win over the brass, Obama would need to offer them something. The brass is not anti-gay per se, but they view this issue as a distraction from what they really like to do - buy ginormously expensive weapons from the contractors they'll work for after retirement. So, O had better bring a big checkbook and do some horse-trading the Chicago way if he wants to get it done.
The question is, how badly does he want to get it done?
That assumes there are no anti-gay Democrats, and of course there are.And it assumes Collins and Snowe and a few of the others would vote with the rest of the party, which of course they wouldn't. I think you're right, the Republicans won't even try. But I don't think they could sustain a filibuster even if they did try.
Buxom gay-marriage opponent fires Army officer for being gay
Key quote: A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges.
Yup, Trooper was right:
"An executive order would not get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" law, but would take the critical step of suspending its implementation, hence rendering it effectively dead."
Jeremy, I have been posting here for years. Find a single post where I say I hate our President.
Put up, or shut up.
Trey
people still arguing with the pig I see.
Jeremy --
"We've had eight years of the most inept and corrupt administration in our nation's history..."
Look, Clinton's been out of office for a while now. Let it go.
Latest news is that President Obama has "fired" a gay Arabic translator (National Guard), Daniel Choi. Ostensibly for coming out on national TV.
"Zachary Paul Sire said...
(3) every state that has voted on gay marriage has voted it down
Well, things have changed.Seems the "gay agenda" is working on all the poor, poor, malleable straights. Deal with it."
Meaningless and irrelevant. It's the voting public that has the final say so, outside of sidestepping courts that mysteriously find homosexual marriage in their constitutions or legislatures bringing up bills to pass homosexual marriages outside of the representation of their constituencies. Voting is where the rubber meets the rode ZPS, not your strawman of an argument on a poll.
Well, he's already done it once.Once?
Just to remove the doubts about the hypocrisy of Obama and his [silent] supporters:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/obama-to-fire-his-first-g_b_199070.html
Oh DownTown Lad? This Bud's for you.
I don't understand the willingness to wait until 2010 or 2012 for this.
It would take 5 minutes for a subordinate to craft the right words, and 10 seconds for Obama to sign the directive.
DADT must be, as I'd thought, an issue they don't really care about at all, but like to use as a cudgel, another mechanism to gain their true aim, power.
Obama cannot just, with a stroke of the pen, do away with DADT. It IS a federal law, after all.
However, the law only says that someone must be ousted from the military if the person is found to be gay. There is nothing that mandates such a finding.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/obama-to-fire-his-first-g_b_199070.html
DADT must be, as I'd thought, an issue they don't really care about at all, but like to use as a cudgel, another mechanism to gain their true aim, power.
Are you suggesting that politicians are hypocrites?
Reading all the gay/left responses, it sure seems like the left is far more interested in bashing Republicans than fighting for their causes.
Enough about Obama's complete failure to help gays. I heard some juicy details about that nazi cow Carrie Prejean's parents' divorce! Let's git thems Rethuglikins! Yeehaw!
If Obama is truly a man of substance unlike "ephemeral" GW Bush, then why hasn't he issued an executive order repealing DADT? Answer me that left-tards?
No, he shouldn't. His voters that carried him into office proved he shouldn't. Even in uber liberal California, the same voters who overwhelmingly voted for The Big O also voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Message received, loud and clear.
Post a Comment