President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum on Wednesday to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, administration officials said Tuesday evening, but he will stop short of pledging full health insurance coverage....But let's be fair. Obama said he would "fight hard" for gay rights. What does it mean for Obama to "fight hard"? The man is famously cool. He is not belligerent. Here, perhaps, is our President, fighting hard:
Mr. Obama, in an Oval Office announcement, is expected to offer details about which benefits will be provided. It is the most significant statement he has made on gay issues, and it comes as he faces intense criticism from several gay rights leaders over what they suggest has been a failure to live up to campaign promises in the first months of his presidency....
... President Obama and his advisers have been reluctant to wade deeply into divisive issues like overturning a ban on openly gay military members or extending benefits to partners of government employees, fearful that such moves could overtake the administration’s broader agenda.
He has sent private assurances, several activists have said, that he intends to do more in coming years....
June 17, 2009
During the campaign, Obama promised to "fight hard" for gay rights.
Now:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
208 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 208 of 208Jim said..."Dick Cheney...just this month..."
This is exactly what I'm saying.
You think Cheney, after all this time, knowing his daughter is gay, suddenly saying he's okay with it...makes him somehow pro-gay rights.
Where the fuck was he for eight years while he was V.P.??
Was his daughter gay then?
Jim - Can't help but notice you've decided to bail out.
You love to talk the talk, but when confronted...adios.
Gutless homophobe.
When was the last time you saw a republican arguing for gay rights?
Me. I did. Years ago.
I stopped because too many of the most vocal gays were acting like pricks. I found myself less and less inclined to stick my neck out for them. Good going, guys!
So I found other causes to support that are more worth my while.
And every time someone accuses a guy like Jim, who does nothing more than point out what seems to be an intuitive political calculus that should be obvious to any reasonably astute political observer, of being a 'homophobe,' and when you assholes are quick to accuse others of 'bigotry' at the drop of a dime, honestly, don't be surprised if I wash my hands of you.
Christ, if you were in the GOP leadership, would YOU want you showing up at your rallies? Would YOU want to be represented by your own leaders on non-gay-related issues?
Andrew Sullivan is the standard-bearer for the pro-gay rights political rhetoric now. Good God, you've got problems.
I'm sympathetic to civil liberties arguments. I'm not sympathetic to hissy-fits, hystrionics, and false accusations of bigotry. It's a total turn-off.
Want me on your team again supporting your cause and lending conservative weight to your arguments and working on converting moderates, independents and conservatives to your cause? Then act like adults and convince me you're worth the effort.
Otherwise I've got other things to do with my time.
I will take Jim at his word. Why not? You can engage in some trash talk and then offer up a serious opinion.
On that note...
I think Obama is were Kennedy was in 1961 concerning civil rights. In 1961 Kennedy was favorably viewed as being vaguely pro civil rights. But there was frustration with him being unwilling to get out front on the issue. It was not until 1963 that Kennedy came out forcefully for civil rights when James Meredith tried to enter the University of Mississippi.
I think Obama's actions today are important. But probably the most politically important actions in advancing the cause this year is Ted Olson and Dick Cheney saying they support same sex marriage. Its importance obviously is due to the fact that they are view as being social conservative Republicans. I think we might look back and see it as the political game changer.
Don't be dumb ass. ...
While it's always true that he who first resorts to name-calling automatically loses the debate, that's okay. You're easy enough to squash on the merits.
...If all of McCain's voters ballots were not counted it would have failed overwhelmingly. If all of Obama voters ballots had not been counted it would have passed overwhelmingly. ...
The simple truth is gay marriage loses, usually resoundingly loses, wherever and whenever it's presented to the folks for an honest straight up and down vote.
... In reality all of the votes were counted and it narrowly passed.
52-47 is pretty much your standard difference. Not a landslide, but not all that narrow either.
And like I said, and I'm going to say it again because it is the overriding truth, the religious right does not control this issue. Prop 8 would've never passed but for support from Obama voters. Period. End of story. And such is not unique to California. Do the religious folks out there who value traditional marriage mostly vote against it? Duh-h. Is water wet? Hey, this is your loyal opposition. These are the very people who you want to jam gay marriage down the throats of. Take that, fundie xtians. You seriously argue that they should vote your way? You knew they wouldn't be voting your way going in. But members of this defined and discrete opposition are not anywhere near sufficient in number to control the outcome of elections. Gay marriage proponents would be jamming gay marriage down the throats of the Christian right except for one thing: enough of the very leftard leftoid base who loyally shows up at the polls to vote for dummycrats candidates du jour are at the same time saying nix nix to gay marriage. They don't want it either. And they are the ones who are killing it.
Stranger readers have voted to de-friend Obama.
Know who else is a homophobe?
Apparently, Barney Frank.
He has come out in support of Obama's defense of DOMA. So, he apparently AGREES that gay marriage is like incest.
And that is a guy the gay community supports. Heck, a fellow gay guy who is saying that.
He says Obama isn't supposed to oppose a law in court...except that four of the prior admins all DID manage to oppose the constitutionality of laws in court.
Frank's statement:
“Now that I have read the brief, I believe that the administration made a conscientious and largely successful effort to avoid inappropriate rhetoric. There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard – which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I think it should be upgraded.”
“It was my position in that conversation with the reporter that the administration had no choice but to defend the constitutionality of the law. I think it is unwise for liberals like myself, who were consistently critical of President Bush’s refusal to abide by the law in cases where he disagreed with it to now object when President Obama refuses to follow the Bush example. It is the President’s job to try to change the law, but it is also his obligation to uphold and defend it when it has been enacted by appropriate processes. It would not be wise, in my judgment, for those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or who sympathize with the fight for our rights, to argue for a precedent that says that executives who disagreed politically with the purpose of the law should have the option of refusing to defend it in a constitutional case.”
As I said, they know you won't vote for anybody else so they don't give a shit about any of you.
The LGBT community push back.
Good for them.
Post a Comment