Slog Comments


Comments (127) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
ScienceNerd 1
I'm glad he's for it, but I don't like the idea of being ok with states deciding, because some states are deciding incorrectly.
Posted by ScienceNerd on May 9, 2012 at 12:11 PM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 2
So Obama is in-line with the 1860 Demcratic Platform of State's Rights now?

Uh...this isn't all that great.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on May 9, 2012 at 12:14 PM · Report this
I still found it very interesting he mentioned his daughter's views. This is how we will win ultimately, regardless of the exact trip we take. In other words we've already won years ago, and this is the (painful) mopping up.
Posted by BEG!/browneyedgirl65 on May 9, 2012 at 12:14 PM · Report this
I'll take it. It's a shit-ton better than Frank Bruni's column the other day led me to suspect.
Posted by gloomy gus on May 9, 2012 at 12:14 PM · Report this
Words are very cheap, and Obama has proven time and again that he buys them at wholesale prices.

But I suppose I should be glad that he at least acknowedges that I should have human rights. Sad to say, that is an improvement.
Posted by TechBear on May 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM · Report this
This is good news, and I just gave his campaign money to say thank-you.
Posted by -J on May 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM · Report this
very bad homo 8
Obama's not perfect...but what would President Romney do?
Posted by very bad homo on May 9, 2012 at 12:18 PM · Report this
TheLando 10
He's trimming that hedge. Soon he'll cut it down all together.
Posted by TheLando on May 9, 2012 at 12:20 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 11
Guys. I don't like to be the cold shower here, but the fact is, you're maybe (generously) 3% of the population. In times of hardship, like we have right now, the fact that anybody is taking the time to acknowledge three percent is a Big Fucking Deal.

Not what you want to hear. But the way it is, out here in RealityVille.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on May 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM · Report this
Cracker Jack 13
@5: FWIW, saying these words almost definitely cost him some center and just right of center independent votes. And in the upcoming election, they could be costly, indeed. So, yeah, thank you Mr. Obama for choosing principal over pandering.
Posted by Cracker Jack on May 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM · Report this
SpecialBrew 12
Plus, he's always been for getting rid of unconstitutional DOMA.

The POTUS can't create gay marriage across the land, but DOMA repealled will make de-facto gay marriage in terms of federal benefits and any and all Obama SC nominees would be sure to vote the right way if and when they come to the Supreme Court.

So he's saying he is for gay marriage and will do everything a POTUS can do to achieve it. I don't really think it would be helpful to have him suddenly try to unconstitutionally interfere in state marriage laws. Neither would it be helpful for him to wag his finger at OTHER "evolving" voters in their 40s, 50s, and 60s who have voted for a state gay marriage ban in the last 14 years and call them bigots.
Posted by SpecialBrew on May 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM · Report this
oh come on dan! this is big. i for one got all teary when he talked about his girls and their friends who have same sex parents. i just want to celebrate right now!
Posted by martarose on May 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM · Report this
@6--I didn't catch her name, but a reporter from Politico was on MSNBC a short time ago saying that this whole thing was sparked by Obama's cabinet being pissed at him for not coming out in favor because it's fucking up all of the work they've done on his branding, and it's causing the base and young voters to become more apathetic. In other words, this was a political decision. Perhaps the reporting is wrong, but it's hard not to be cynical when you hear that. The timing of his "evolution" is way too suspicious.
Posted by balki on May 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM · Report this
I agree, and the position is wrong.


One of the biggest lies in the right wing toolbag is that civil unions, or when a bigger lie is needed, private contracts, provide all the same rights as federally recognized marriage.

A situation where IF a state recognizes a marriage, the federal government recognizes that marriage, would put the lie in sharp relief, and the snowball that is already on its way down the hill will move far faster.

It also raises the question of whether one state's non-recognition of another state's valid marriage takes away federal recognition as well, and whether the state can refuse to recognize the federal aspects of a marriage, whether for its own citizens or for validly married non-residents just passing through.
Posted by Lymis on May 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM · Report this
Dan how could you praise him fir an It Get's Better video and not for this? We all know that the President support marriage is a victory of message and culture only. He doesn't have the power to enact a marriage agenda. His position get's to be the opposite end of Ron Paul's and I don't think the gays will be angry.
Posted by LukeJoe on May 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM · Report this
Personally I won't be happy until Obama dresses in drag and hosts my local gay pride parade.
Posted by bobbo on May 9, 2012 at 12:24 PM · Report this
@#11: "that's just the way it is... Don't you believe them.." - B. Hornsby, shootin down your tired ass comment. Equal rights! Viva Obama!!
Posted by Slog Tipper David on May 9, 2012 at 12:24 PM · Report this
SpecialBrew 21
Anyone who thinks THIS is cowardly on today of all days needs to look at how narrowly Obama won North Carolina 4 years ago.

North Carolina evangelicals are going to perceive this as a direct slap and come out in droves. I think he probably just lost NC's electoral votes in doing the right thing.
Posted by SpecialBrew on May 9, 2012 at 12:24 PM · Report this
r.chops 20
Can the president force North Carolina to marry same-sex couples?
Posted by r.chops on May 9, 2012 at 12:24 PM · Report this
Lance Thrustwell 22
Maybe further cold shower, but what exactly can the president do about it beside express support? He can get the ball moving to have DOMA repealed, I guess, but what beyond that? He can't MAKE any state legalize it, can he? Any lawyers hip to this sort of thing, help a brotha out.
Posted by Lance Thrustwell on May 9, 2012 at 12:26 PM · Report this
merry 23
Well alright then.

The ball is in Rmoney's court now to essplain how gay folks are just not worthy of the same civil rights as the straights. Which he can and will do, and which his mouth-breathing tea-baggy base will lap up like Metamucil.

Posted by merry on May 9, 2012 at 12:26 PM · Report this
I'll take a cynical Obama hedging his support over a sincere Romney committed to wiping out my rights any day.

We're officially in "either/or" territory now, and Obama and a Democratic Administration is far better than Romney heading a Republican Administration would be.

We want better? Yes. And now is the time to start grooming "better" for 2016. Because whatever else is true about Obama, we don't need Romney instead.
Posted by Lymis on May 9, 2012 at 12:27 PM · Report this
For those whose hearts have been warmed by Obama's "support", keep in mind that he's still in favor of states deciding the matter. In other words, he thinks gays in Seattle should be able to marry, but not in North Carolina. They don't deserve those rights, because the people living near them don't think they should. That's some powerful leadership there.
Posted by balki on May 9, 2012 at 12:27 PM · Report this
#9 - He didn't repeal DADT: he fought very hard against a judicial repeal, refused to use his executive authority to invoke stop-loss against it (even though he was using it for everything else) and made no move whatsoever to support or endorse the legislative repeal that Congress, and Congress alone, put forth. Even then, he dragged his feet for as long as he could before signing off on the repeal.

He ordered his "Justice" Department not to defend DOMA in court. Instead, the JD has been throwing up other kinds of roadblocks to prevent the few federal cases from proceeding, making judicial defense unnecessary.

Like I said, words are cheap. Without some kind of actual action to back them up, they are only words. Obama has not only adamantly refused to offer anything but words -- and precious few of those -- he has backed down from any kind of meaningful action at every opportunity.

Sure, the Republicans would be worse. But being "less worse" is not exactly what I would call a ringing endorsement.
Posted by TechBear on May 9, 2012 at 12:27 PM · Report this
@7, thanks for the reminder to show him my appreciation with campaign support. Done.

Sadly, it's too long since payday for me to afford tomorrow's Seattle fundraising lunch with Obama at Bruce Blume's in Broadmoor, such a bargain at $35,800 a plate.
Posted by gloomy gus on May 9, 2012 at 12:28 PM · Report this
"The valiant profit their country more than the finest, cleverest speakers."

As a man who is no warrior, I nevertheless must absolutely agree. Stop trusting your politicians. The body politic is merely a means to propel their own careers and ridiculously wealthy posterity. Ironically, as a benevolent despot need not bend to the swaying winds of one movement or another, they may make more correct and sincere decisions on behalf of their citizens. I know that benevolent despot is considered an oxymoron among leftist circles; I don't necessarily agree. Frequently, despots work in a world continually destabilized by their own aristocracy, seeking to create their own personal oligarchic utopia; a despot can instead align himself with the common folk and keep the oligarchy permanently at bay. The US, unfortunately was founded purely as an oligarchy. It has been ever an oligarchy since that point, though periodically and shortly approaching becoming something so much more.
Posted by Central Scrutinizer on May 9, 2012 at 12:29 PM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 29
I'm glad he did it. Sure, it's not perfect, but neither am I. And after all, He's got a tight rope to walk between the conservative nutcases and the nothing-is-good-enough liberals.

Not defending DOMA. Ending DADT, and now the most encouraging position towards marriage equality of any serving American president ever.

What's not to like? Don't be such an Aravosis, Dan darling.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay on May 9, 2012 at 12:30 PM · Report this
balderdash 30
The President doesn't have any power over state laws. What exactly did you want him to do about North Carolina?

And @3, you're absolutely correct. This shit changes generationally. That's unfair and painful to people who have to live out most or all of their lives waiting for societal attitudes about them to catch up with the progress of intellect and ethics, but it's fact. Every generation thinks "kids these days" are rude, uncouth, and morally loose, in part precisely because every generation is a little bit better, a little bit more liberal and accepting and educated, than the one before.

Makes me wonder what my grandkids will think I'm ass-backwards about.
Posted by balderdash on May 9, 2012 at 12:31 PM · Report this
r.chops 31
no, that's not what he said at all.
he said HE thinks gays should be able to marry in Seattle AND NC, but that he can't interfere with the will of the people in those places.
Posted by r.chops on May 9, 2012 at 12:31 PM · Report this
nseattlite 32
Way to piss all over it Dan.
Posted by nseattlite on May 9, 2012 at 12:31 PM · Report this
Could this also be interpreted as a reminder that participating in non-Presidential politics is still important? That people can't just vote for Obama and say "Cool, you take care of things now, I'm out." Him highlighting states' rights is (I think, anyway) also reminding voters that they have a responsibility to show up and participate if they really want things to change.
Posted by augurgirl on May 9, 2012 at 12:32 PM · Report this
Puty 36
Would've preferred something bolder and principled, which I think would've helped Obama politically by baiting odious Republicans to be even more loathesome and marginalizing them as un-electable psychos with freaky hang-ups who can't pull more than 30 per cent of the vote. But could be wrong. Maybe this is the most that can be done right now.

I guess this could be viewed as a baby step for a country with a lot of angry children. Maybe there's more to come in the coming months.

Anyway legalizing same-sex marriage in your country is so embarrassingly overdue. Even here in Canada it's been less than 10 years. Ugh. Shame.
Posted by Puty on May 9, 2012 at 12:36 PM · Report this
That's the classic sign of successful politics - nobody is happy in the end.
Posted by bitethemailman on May 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM · Report this
@31 - No, he didn't say that he can't interfere. He said that he supports the rights of states to choose the issue on their own. If he truly believed that everybody should be able to marry in any state, he wouldn't have said that, and not that states should decide. He indirectly validated NC's vote.
Posted by balki on May 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM · Report this
Shena Lee 39
LET'S JUST TAKE A MOMENT AND BE HAPPY!! cry-times at my desk, lots of hugs, everyone's invited!
Posted by Shena Lee on May 9, 2012 at 12:40 PM · Report this
Pissing on this is poor form.

Of course I get Dan's point…but, really?

Dan, please resist the urge to go on National TV to decry this.

This is a good moment. A politically important moment. And while I understand the activist need for purity on issues, the world of politics operates in its own unique way.

Today is a good day. Celebrate. Complain tomorrow if you must.
Posted by Timothy on May 9, 2012 at 12:42 PM · Report this
pissy mcslogbot 41
The larger point is that the states that don't evolve and quick are going to see even more brain drain and further divestment from their economic base; the playing field is generational and the old edifices are starting to crumble.
Posted by pissy mcslogbot on May 9, 2012 at 12:43 PM · Report this
Of COURSE he's in favor of letting states decide. Until the judiciary says otherwise the states get to decide everyfuckingthing. That's the law, folks. Always has been.

Not only is it the proper legal position it is likely the most practical position. HE's not FORCING the dagnabit homo agenda on North Carolina. In time they'll figure it out. Really. Or, the supremes will figure it out for them and we'll debate it for decades (see, e.g., Roe v. Wade).
Posted by BLUE on May 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 44
If you're under 55, you generally have no problem with this.

If you're over 55, you were probably scared of black Presidents anyway, and space aliens.
Posted by Will in Seattle on May 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 45
(Waiting for the first trans person to have a hissy fit about all of it. It's inevitable, you know.)
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on May 9, 2012 at 12:45 PM · Report this
GlamB0t 46
The President of the United States just said he is for marriage equality. I'd say it's a step forward.
Posted by GlamB0t on May 9, 2012 at 12:46 PM · Report this
This very issue could easily cost him the election so for him to make a statement like this before the election is HUGE. Yes, of course we'd all like to see there to be no caveats, etc., with the statement but doing that pre-election would be political suicide. As is, this is a huge risk. Let's see what happens post-election (assuming he wins). I predict we'll see him put more teeth behind these statements. We're getting there...
Posted by freshnycman on May 9, 2012 at 12:47 PM · Report this
r.chops 48

"he thinks gays in Seattle should be able to marry, but not in North Carolina."

No, he said "I think same sex couples should be able to get married." With a period.

To twist the fact that he cannot overturn state law into an affirmation of that law is pretty cheap.

To all the people who say he should have been more bold than "I think same sex couples should be able to get married," what are you requesting he do? Honestly asking?

Propose legislature to congress to make same-sex marriage a federal law?

Send in the National Guard to NC and foce marriages under martial law?

Fuck, this was a pretty big fucking step for a presidential politician in an election year. For a president, period.

Fuck, people.
Posted by r.chops on May 9, 2012 at 12:47 PM · Report this
despicable me 49
I for one am HAPPY, HAPPY, HAPPY right now. THIS IS HUGE AND WE NEED TO APPRECIATE IT FOR WHAT IT IS. Baby barefoot steps got us here and will become toddler walking shoes soon.

Thank You, Mr. President!

Posted by despicable me on May 9, 2012 at 12:49 PM · Report this
kim in portland 50
I'm glad. Very glad. It can take a hell of a long time for injustice to become intolerable for most of us. And today he publically announced that he has awoken. I'm going to cheer for him. One could argue that he has more evolution to undergo, but it would be folly to not recognize that very same trait in ourselves. Injustice awakens compassion and compassion dismantles injustice.

Cheer a little, Dan. Think of how this announcement adds to his IGB video. Maybe the president's hope is not fully ripe for today, but the in the tomorrows of our children is will be.

Take care.
Posted by kim in portland on May 9, 2012 at 12:50 PM · Report this
Don't pull out your checkbook yet, Dan. Don't reward cynical political ploys that come on the back of people who are now screwed by their government. Wait until he does something concrete (say the ENDA Executive Order) before the gAyTM goes back on line.
Posted by usagi on May 9, 2012 at 12:52 PM · Report this
John Horstman 55
Regulating marriage isn't within the purview of the Federal government, by constitutional law. SHOULD discrimination on the basis of sex/gender/sexuality be universally illegal? Sure, but it isn't. Obama is absolutely correct that as things stand, marriage law is up to states (also, this position is perfectly consistent with a refusal to defend DOMA, which is pretty blatantly unconstitutional, as it goes directly against the constitutional provision that states must respect legal contracts established in other states). This is in part why we need an Equal Rights Amendment - the USA Constitution does not presently prevent discrimination on the basis of various categories it should protect. It drives me crazy when people conflate what the law DOES say (in this case, what they think the president is in any position to address through allowed policy and presidential powers) with what they THINK THE LAWS SHOULD SAY; you're doing it Dan - we need a constitutional amendment to protect equality on the basis of sexuality (I make the argument that marriage equality can be framed as an issue of sex/gender discrimination, dependent upon the sex/gender of one's object choice - we might not want to write "sexuality" into a constitutional protection, as this opens a small door for challenges to things like rape laws, age of consent laws, etc.). While we're at it, we could do an amendment that posits bodily autonomy/agency/integrity as THE fundamental human right and protects it, ending legal challenges to abortion forever ('privacy' is a bad precedent, since it's only weakly implied constitutionally). Oh, and ending corporate personhood, which is based entirely on precedent set by something that never actually happened.
Posted by John Horstman on May 9, 2012 at 12:57 PM · Report this
reverend dr dj riz 56
any excuse to have champagne with lunch is fine with there's that..
Posted by reverend dr dj riz on May 9, 2012 at 12:59 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 57
@ 52, politics is a cynical business. If that rubs your idealistic ass the wrong way, tough.
Posted by Matt from Denver on May 9, 2012 at 12:59 PM · Report this
Let me know when he has legislation introduced to fix the Federal tax code and immigration laws.
Posted by Fritz on May 9, 2012 at 1:00 PM · Report this
An uncharacteristically brave move. (Brave, even if he was pushed to the brink by his VP, his Sec. of Ed., and others.)

Let's hope it was also uncharacteristically well-timed, and it delivers a tipping point rather than an electoral debacle.
Posted by RonK, Seattle on May 9, 2012 at 1:01 PM · Report this
John Horstman 60
@30: Zoophilia and body shame. :-P
Posted by John Horstman on May 9, 2012 at 1:01 PM · Report this
geoz 61
Let's have a day of happiness and leave the purity tests to the TP and Indiana Senators.

The President has the right view. He is also not tyrannical. I want it to be done now too, but this is a monumental leap forward.
Posted by geoz on May 9, 2012 at 1:02 PM · Report this
The Federal govt. has to acknowledge same sex unions in order for federal employees in such to receive the same benefits for their spouses that opposite sex unions enjoy.

For the Feds to not recognize that, it is the same as denying the right to certain couples to enjoy the benefits of getting married.
Posted by Barbara on May 9, 2012 at 1:04 PM · Report this
augurgirl @33 >>Could this also be interpreted as a reminder that participating in non-Presidential politics is still important? That people can't just vote for Obama and say "Cool, you take care of things now, I'm out." Him highlighting states' rights is (I think, anyway) also reminding voters that they have a responsibility to show up and participate if they really want things to change.>>

Posted by EricaP on May 9, 2012 at 1:09 PM · Report this
@48 - Yes, he said that he thinks same-sex couples should be able to marry (with a period after it). But after that period, he said that he still thinks it should be up to the states to decide.

I understand that Obama has no power to step in and force states to let gays marry. I'm merely suggesting that, if he's truly willing to stand up for equality, he would say he supports it nationally (understanding that he has no direct power other than the bully pulpit and lobbying Congress). But he didn't say that. His statement today was meaningless.
Posted by balki on May 9, 2012 at 1:09 PM · Report this
Rujax! 66
I'm with Catalina, Dan.

Aravosis is pissed as I see you are that this is not a "full-throated" endorsement.

Obama is a cautious centerist...and there will be withering fire from the other side starting

Marriage equality is a no-brainer to most folks in Seattle. What the other side won't realize is that EVERYBODY has same sex couples in their families and circles of friends and co-workers. Young folks pretty much don't see same sex relationships as a big deal, and you know all this.

The point is that OFA orchestrated this staring with Biden on Sunday. They do not do stuff like this by accident. BHO was going this way and doing this and by doing so, as "weakly" as some feel he's done it, he has set the course.

It's taken 40 years...but the tide IS turning.
Posted by Rujax! on May 9, 2012 at 1:13 PM · Report this
Mattini 67
I'm elated. This is honestly more than I expected we'd get from the President before the election. And unprecedented. What an awesome day.
Posted by Mattini on May 9, 2012 at 1:13 PM · Report this
Mr. Durral 1 68
Your point is well taken, Dan. However this is a win and a big step forward. Furthermore, it is essential that we use this win to "rally the troops" and get O re-elected, otherwise we will not be stepping forward AT ALL!
Posted by Mr. Durral 1 on May 9, 2012 at 1:21 PM · Report this
merry 70
@ 63 - Sweeeeeet.

TY for posting!
Posted by merry on May 9, 2012 at 1:24 PM · Report this
@11: But Romney goes out of his way to acknowledge the 1% whenever possible.
Posted by Whoop Di Doo on May 9, 2012 at 1:25 PM · Report this
CodyBolt 72
think your being WAY to hard on him here Dan.
Posted by CodyBolt on May 9, 2012 at 1:26 PM · Report this
I agree, this is an awesome day. It's much more than I expected to happen before the November elections.
Maybe this is the beginning of the real Obama -- no fear, straight-talking, tell it like it is Obama.
I think we've been waiting for this guy to show up for a while now, on this issue especially.

And as my wise relative explained so succinctly:
Keep in mind that "marriage law has always been state law, not federal law, and there is not much benefit to the feds getting involved. But I think the federal government should recognize all marriages equally for the purposes of federal benefits and such. States that continue to practice marriage discrimination will eventually find themselves on the losing end of a Supreme Court decision."

Posted by Fire Chief on May 9, 2012 at 1:26 PM · Report this
You're not wrong, Dan, but his straddle is coming - slow-ly - to an end. SCOTUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS.
Posted by cgd on May 9, 2012 at 1:28 PM · Report this
TampaDink 75
At the end of the day, I applaud Dan for including in his statement that he & Terry have already contributed & will give more to Obama/Biden 2012.
Posted by TampaDink on May 9, 2012 at 1:32 PM · Report this
merry 76
On that glorious day in the future when the 28th Constitutional Amendment is passed that bans gender-based discrimination in all US legal marriages, we will look back at This Day In History, May 9 2012, as the Beginning of the End of state-sanctioned second-class-citizenship for gays.

This is a day to celebrate!
Posted by merry on May 9, 2012 at 1:32 PM · Report this
Haven't we yet to hear what this means for what policy he supports? Maybe part of the "platform" for the fall election will include marriage equality federally?
Posted by Ellery on May 9, 2012 at 1:34 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 80

So the fact that he's doing something his base wants is a bad thing? Right.

This is a huge reason why liberals rarely get anything you want, because you motherfuckers are never fucking happy when you do.
Posted by keshmeshi on May 9, 2012 at 1:35 PM · Report this
fastasleep 83
Dan, people like you are the reason that progressives lose. Show some support for fuck's sake – it's starting to seem like you won't be happy unless he starts officiating gay marriages himself. You're a fool if you don't quickly start rallying your base in favor of Obama, and any momentum gained here will be quickly lost under a Romney presidency.
Posted by fastasleep on May 9, 2012 at 1:40 PM · Report this
onion 84
Dan I think you are totally right to be delighted but skeptical and disappointed at the same time. I think that is a good place to be on this.
Posted by onion on May 9, 2012 at 1:45 PM · Report this
I would just remind you, Dan, that states getting to do things their own way and in their own time is how we wound up with gay marriage in this country. Do you think we'd have it if it required a sweeping federal-level decision? Think again.

So while it would be ideal if Obama were more vocally against efforts like the one that just enshrined discrimination into the NC constitution, I can't say I'm too disappointed in him. In a way, he's defending states' rights - the same rights that allowed MA, IA, NY, et al to do the right thing.
Posted by scsmith21 on May 9, 2012 at 1:50 PM · Report this
I for one am ready for the bigots to die off.
Posted by My Name Here on May 9, 2012 at 2:15 PM · Report this
@79 - When I said it wouldn't accomplish anything, I meant that this would do nothing in terms of movement to legalize same-sex marriage nationally or at any state-level. Ultimately, he just made a statement today because his poll numbers with the base are freaking out his cabinet (WaPo has a story up about how he was planning to do this at the convention in the summer, but the pressure from his gay donors made them up the timetable...real principled stuff).

You're absolutely right that it accomplished something for his reelection chances, but I couldn't care less about how this benefits him.
Posted by balki on May 9, 2012 at 2:16 PM · Report this
You're not being Debbie Downer. You're just being stupid.

YOU ARE MARRIED. The President has long supported YOU getting equal rights.

If a couple is in a civil union, the President has long supported them getting right EQUAL to marriage.

If a couple is stupid enough to move to NC, the President still supports their getting EQUAL FEDERAL RIGHTS.

He's a president, not a king.
Posted by BobSF_94117 on May 9, 2012 at 2:20 PM · Report this

Seriously, I’m trying to figure out what’s up your craw with President Obama? – as you’re reeking pretty significantly of white privilege to me.

In US history, there has never been a mass evolution of social conscience on issues from civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights or marriage equality that didn’t start its evolution through its various states or a Supreme Court ruling. It’s just how prejudice and ignorance works. There has to be an evolution in consciousness. It’s frustrating but now you know how blacks feel.

In 1866, was the first Civil Rights Act that was overturned by the Supreme Court and it wasn’t overturned until 1964. By comparison, I think the LGBTQ movement has been evolving at a considerable clip and has the potential of elapsing far quicker than women’s rights and black civil rights.

So, give it a break…
Posted by JG, III on May 9, 2012 at 2:26 PM · Report this
Things don't improve for the oppressed because politicians wait for the polls to give them the "courage" to oppose bigotry.

Things improve because people like this never needed polls to tell them when to do the right thing.…
Posted by LJM on May 9, 2012 at 2:27 PM · Report this

Seriously, I’m trying to figure out what’s up your craw with President Obama? – as you’re reeking pretty significantly of privilege to me.

In US history, there has never been a mass evolution of social conscience on issues from civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights or marriage equality that didn’t start its evolution through its various states or a Supreme Court ruling. It’s just how prejudice and ignorance works. There has to be an evolution in consciousness. It’s frustrating but now you know how blacks feel.

In 1866, was the first Civil Rights Act that was overturned by the Supreme Court and it wasn’t overturned until 1964. By comparison, I think the LGBTQ movement has been evolving at a considerable clip and has the potential of elapsing far quicker than women’s rights and black civil rights.

So, give it a break…
Posted by JG, III on May 9, 2012 at 2:30 PM · Report this
frizbeesf 93
Yes this is great. The President doesn't think we are icky and less-than any more.. yay us!
(waves rainbow flag while singing "I am what I am" and farting glitter...) My husband and will run down to the US Embassy here in London first time tomorow to fill out his sponsorship paperwork and green card application! Oh wait.... we still cant.

Once the joys cries of happy munchkins has died down, lets ask the next logical question... What does this mean? The answer.. not much. Great symbolism, historic even. But in practical terms of the lives of same sex couples? Nothing. States can still write bigotry into law and smile while they do it. Bi-national same sex couples like my husband and I are still living in DOMA exile, because of a complete lack of federal recognition of our relationship. I am glad to hear the President SAY he supports marriage equality, I'll be more impressed when his ACTIONS match the rhetoric.
Posted by frizbeesf on May 9, 2012 at 2:31 PM · Report this
In response to all of of the people saying that Obama standing up for gay marriage is not soon enough or not firm enough I say this: I came out over 15 years ago, I was beaten I was tormented. In CO where I grew up they tried to pass a law to legalize discrimination against LGBT people in housing and employment. 10 years ago I never thought I would see gay marriage in my lifetime. 5 years ago, for a too brief time I saw friends get married legally in CA. Today I saw a president say "I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married" Things are changing and more rapidly than I had ever hoped. Rather than be disappointed in it not going fast enough. I am going to be grateful for it changing at all.
Posted by Chasers on May 9, 2012 at 2:34 PM · Report this
Yes, but moving between states is easy. Use the power of your purse and UHaul to make bigots pay a price for their intolerance.
I think this is incredibly brave of Obama. Their is zero political upside for defending marriage of gays. ZERO! Who are gays going to vote for if Obama remained against gay marriage? Mitt Romney wants to reinstate DADT, Republicans who want to make it illegal for gays to adopt, teach, ect? The problem is no one goes to the polls to allow gay marriage- the NC election just proved that. The Republicans picked putting the ballot on this issue during the primary because they knew the type of people who voted in the primary were the type of people who would vote against gay rights. This measure would have had a tougher win if it was on the ballot in November.
Posted by cminmd on May 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM · Report this
All this nitpicking about the president's position frustrates me. When he didn't support it, everyone was pissed. Now that he supports it, he doesn't support it ENOUGH. (Or supports it too much, depending on your politics.) Supporting it at all in an election year is courageous enough, I think, to trump the slightly inadequate extent of his support. His position isn't evolving. His perception of public opinion is. And it's evolving in the right direction, so let's crawl out of his ass, shall we?

I'm ambivalent for another reason. I think most of us have known that Obama really supports gay marriage and has from the start, but has sat on the sidelines to avoid making it (and him) a bigger political target. Well, now he's openly in favor of it, and the Republicans will try to hang him with it. And for all we know it may work. I'm sure there are more than a few voters who will vote for Romney just to stick it to the gays (and not in the good way).

That sound you hear? It's the Republican party gearing up its "Blame the gays for all your problems" campaign platform. Gays, not reckless banks, or unfair tax policies, or financial inequality, or the cost of healthcare, or jobs, or foreign policy -- it's gonna be all about the gays. Boy, I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by Daniel_NY on May 9, 2012 at 2:40 PM · Report this
So Dan, what can President Obama do about states banning same sex marriage? There is no way that he can force states to support marriage equality. The Supreme Court will have to decide this so that marriage equality is allowed nationwide.
Posted by Patricia Kayden on May 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM · Report this
pfffter 98
Hey Dan, maybe you should go read Sullivan's piece and see why you're being a fucking asshole.…
Posted by pfffter on May 9, 2012 at 2:55 PM · Report this
Wrong Dan. It's prudent for the President to formally endorse a State-by-State approach; Obama knows that a patchwork nation-wide marriage policy is constitutionally untenable. This announcement was for America, sure, but it was also for one very special person in particular, Justice Anthony Kennedy. He'll be even more hesitant now to taint his legacy with a regressive vote on civil rights. The President isn't a Emperor, able to rule by fiat, he's part of a system. The symbolic victory, the social momentum it propels, is why this moment is truly historic. Still, the final word on gay marriage, the grand denouement, will occur where this whole movement began, at The Supreme Court with a majority decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. It's poetic really.
Posted by SigLNY on May 9, 2012 at 2:55 PM · Report this
Original Andrew 100
Well it is historic news… but yeah, didn’t he just rubber stamp his approval on North Carolina’s Super DOMA that’s made even joint checking punishable by death?

Oh, Unicorn. It’s always one step forward and then two steps back.
Posted by Original Andrew on May 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM · Report this
Original Andrew 101
I should add that I'm impressed he's addressed this before the election, instead of having a miraculous change of heart in January, 2013.
Posted by Original Andrew on May 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM · Report this
It's a start and about damned time. But it does go to show he's still a politician. But if he weren't he couldn't have made it as president and we'd still have dadt.
Posted by EclecticEel on May 9, 2012 at 3:05 PM · Report this
I can't believe how pissy people are being about this. Focus on the positive, dummies!
Posted by Amanda on May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM · Report this
Ipso Facto 104
I'm sure all the mothers of the Pakistani children killed by Obama's drone strikes are absolutely thrilled to hear Obama's wishy-washy support for gay marriage.

Oh, but we can't talk about that! (Shhhh!)


Well said.

Occupy, woman’s groups, immigrant groups, and labor groups are out marching yet all of their grievances are collectively caused by the 2party system (remember the Democrats sell out on health care?).

Just as MLK stood up to LBJ on Vietnam, we still need to stand up to Obama for all the wrongs he’s done.

If a single issue is more important than the rights of those killed by Obama’s needless wars, Obama’s attack on LGBTs with HIV who need medical marijuana, the attack on LGBT and other protestor’s rights, the attack on woman though poverty and war, and the attack on ALL Americans with NDAA (oh and the pending attack on the internet) then go ahead and vote for Obama and justify his evils.

Posted by Ipso Facto on May 9, 2012 at 3:35 PM · Report this
I wept watching him speak, which I've never done before. It was powerful. It's not everything but it surely is a big something.

Posted by Sailoreic on May 9, 2012 at 3:53 PM · Report this
malcolmxy 106
Is he in favor of states deciding the issue like he is in favor of letting states legislate and enforce their own cannabis laws?

I applaud him for doing this, though it was obviously calculated after the "gaffs" by Biden and the Secretary of Education, but I hope he follows through with allowing state laws and helping to enforce the Reciprocal Clause of The Constitution once states start rolling out these laws (since the first few will see huge economic boons from this as gay people are more affluent, per capita, than straight people, and it is likely they will fuel a cottage marriage industry in those states...frankly, I can't believe Nevada hasn't already announced something to follow up the president's message).
Posted by malcolmxy on May 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM · Report this
@44: Fuck you. Your feeble attempts to appear young and hip fool nobody. You're pathetic.
Posted by bigyaz on May 9, 2012 at 4:02 PM · Report this
Reverse Polarity 108
I'll take it.

I'm honestly surprised he made this statement before the November election. I fully expected him to say something like this... in, oh, say December, 2012 or so.
Posted by Reverse Polarity on May 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM · Report this
You're not alone in your reading of what he said and what he means, Dan. It's been push, push, push since the boat I did row with this president on our issues.

I think remembering all the obstacles he placed before each victory and then his taking credit after we did all the work kind of sours the taste of this in the mouths of those who paid attention to what he did and not what he said.

But it is a momentous step forward and I'm glad he did it. I, like you, will open my gay checkbook and even vote for him. If for no other reason then that he's the Not-Romney choice.
Posted by Atagahi on May 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM · Report this
You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me 112
But let’s be clear.

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn't believe they have a right to do so. This is like saying that black children and white children ought to attend the same schools, but if the people of Alabama reject that notion—what are you gonna do?

Fierce advocacy indeed…
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me on May 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM · Report this
As a North Carolinian, I'm angry Obama didn't come to this decision 48 hours earlier. His influence might have changed the results here.
Posted by Bitpoh on May 9, 2012 at 5:19 PM · Report this
It's not where he's at, six months before an election that is important. It's where he is headed. As you mentioned, he is heading in the right direction. As Obama has mentioned in numerous occasions, don't expect him to lead on this issue. It is up to us to lead, and force him to follow. Force him to do the right thing. It is how these things work (unless, of course, the courts do it first).

So yes, give him money. Give Senatorial and Congressional candidates money. Work like hell to get people like this elected. Then, right after the election, hold his balls to the fire. Remind him that you busted your ass to get him elected and you expect results. Also work hard on changing public opinion (hint: avoid words like bullsh** -- but you already know that). But seriously, your work on changing public opinion is much appreciated. Keep it up and we will win this thing really soon.
Posted by Ross on May 9, 2012 at 5:23 PM · Report this

I'm having trouble picturing an independent voter for whom this would be the deciding factor to vote for Romney. I imagine if someone is considering Romney they are either opposed or indifferent to same sex marriage, no?
Posted by Largo on May 9, 2012 at 5:29 PM · Report this
venomlash 117
@104: Why is that in a quotation box like you're citing someone educated and relevant? The only place that quote appears on the Intertubes is where you've posted it.
Posted by venomlash on May 9, 2012 at 5:30 PM · Report this
Historic - and frightening. If the reds win, I suspect the blues will never support us again, and then where will the retaliation end?
Posted by vennominon on May 9, 2012 at 5:48 PM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 119
Dan, you may be Mr. Limp Dick Wet Blanket on the president's announcement, but I'll bet Andrew Sullivan has jizzed in his pants a half dozen times already! JoeMyGod has probably shot a couple of times, too. And so they should; this is huge, period.

No, not a complete turnaround, but still very significant. It's a chocolate sundae without the whipped cream & cherry. Are you gonna complain about the whipped cream & cherry, or are you gonna enjoy the sundae before it melts?

Where do you get "monogamous" from the president's words? I don't think he used the word. He said he knows "incredibly committed" same-sex couples that have influenced his thinking. He made no reference to sexual behavior at all. Trying to get "monogamous" from that is a big, big stretch.

You're being a huge, gaping asshole right now, Dan.
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on May 9, 2012 at 6:21 PM · Report this
I'm not sure why people are saying that if Obama had said this 54 hours ago, it would have made a difference in the NC election. Are there people who regret their vote? Or people who now wished they'd gotten off their duffs and voted, all because Obama has made his feelings clear?

Who are these people?
Posted by clashfan on May 9, 2012 at 6:34 PM · Report this
@119, well, actually --technically -- the President did use the word "monogamous" when describing some of the White House staff's (committed, same-sex) relationships. Watch the taped interview.

Posted by Fire Chief on May 9, 2012 at 6:43 PM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 122
@ 121 - if he did use "monogamous", well, then he did. But I think it's pathological of Dan to pounce on this. The fact that Dan tries to make it about swinger's rights is, frankly, a little creepy.
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on May 9, 2012 at 6:54 PM · Report this
jasonjdotbiz 124
Go Obama; the gay communities President Lincoln! Well I think it’s about time we have a just and brave President who actually believes in equality across the nation. I am however extremely saddened over Amendment 1. In North Carolina, it is perfectly legal to marry your FIRST cousin (well, unless he or she is gay) but yet your neighbors love and legal rights/responsibilities are to be voted on by strangers??? Very sad day for NC, the nation, the world! It is sick and shameful, especially because N. Carolina already has an existing discriminatory law banning same-gender marriage so the only thing this did was cause unnecessary conflict and tension between many people/neighbors. Not to mention MILLIONS of dollars were spent on this initiative and that is money that could have went to starving children, battered woman shelters (that are closing by the hour nationwide) and the list goes on. And we should not use religion as there are many faiths that interpret the sacred text to that of a more inclusive God and perform same-gender marriages. Are we not infringing on their religious freedoms?” I wish we would all live according to Luke 6:31″Do Unto Others….” I would not want my or my loved ones right to love and legal protections/responsibilities put on a ballot. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. – Abraham Lincoln
Posted by jasonjdotbiz on May 9, 2012 at 8:10 PM · Report this
Dan, I fear your mad quest for the spotlight has, among several other unfortunate things, blinded you to the obviousness of the importance of today's events. Please get a grip on yourself.
Posted by Iowa John on May 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM · Report this
Ipso Facto 127

What's your malfunction, numbnuts?

My post @104 clearly indicates that I am quoting from the comments of @69.
Posted by Ipso Facto on May 9, 2012 at 9:42 PM · Report this
rob! 128
@33, @64, yesyes. But sadly one of the best opportunities to do so was lost in the mid-term elections IN A CENSUS YEAR, while liberals dozed off and conservatives gained control of still more state legislatures, thereby (in most instances) controlling Congressional redistricting for the next bloody decade. People focus on national elections way too much and ignore what's going on under their noses at home.

That said, I'll repeat my comment this morning when the news first began to break:
Strong support for marriage equality from the president could be the thing that gets 18-to-30-year-olds (used to be 18-24, but it's taking longer to get launched in life right now) motivated to go to the polls when they're otherwise "meh" about so many things they feel powerless to influence. That group favors equality by a much higher percentage (65% or more in many areas), and because many have grown up now with out gay friends, it's personal for them.

Obama doing this now could have a big effect on many primaries, in addition to the November election.
This should wake up the youngsters and get them jazzed for November; hard to say what else might have done it with the economy likely to keep limping along.
Posted by rob! on May 9, 2012 at 9:43 PM · Report this
THANK YOU for mentioning this. Everyone has seemed to gloss over it. He's giving his *personal* support, but not his *political* support. I'll give him a bit of credit for the former, as it is definitely a (mostly symbolic) step in the right direction, but it's largely toothless if he offers no political support for it. It may just be something that comes to bite him in the ass in November.

But really...the "states' rights" argument, coming from a modern, urban Democrat?! Not to mention one who is himself the product of a union that was deemed illegal in several states during the time of his birth. Yes, it's a big day. But the cognitive dissonance is a bit too much for me to handle.
Posted by pjw2000 on May 9, 2012 at 11:01 PM · Report this
Ipso Facto 130
Let me see if I have this right.

Am I to understand that SLOG's gay community is willing to turn a blind eye to all of Obama's failings, to throw every other rights issue under the bus, simply because he has made a toothless gesture of support for gay marriage?

Isn't that, I dunno, pretty fucking selfish? (And gullible?)

Stephen Durham -- openly gay activist and presidential candidate for the Freedom Socialist Party -- made these comments in a recent interview after the alternative candidates presidential deba…:

If you only fight one oppression, if you only fight your oppression and don't identify with other people's oppression, then it's a dead end. It's a dead end. The HRC is a dead end.

Obama's record thus far was examined by Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic in this article from January:

After reading Andrew Sullivan's Newsweek essay about President Obama, his critics, and his re-election bid, I implore him to ponder just one question. How would you have reacted in 2008 if any Republican ran promising to do the following?

(1) Codify indefinite detention into law; (2) draw up a secret kill list of people, including American citizens, to assassinate without due process; (3) proceed with warrantless spying on American citizens; (4) prosecute Bush-era whistleblowers for violating state secrets; (5) reinterpret the War Powers Resolution such that entering a war of choice without a Congressional declaration is permissible; (6) enter and prosecute such a war; (7) institutionalize naked scanners and intrusive full body pat-downs in major American airports; (8) oversee a planned expansion of TSA so that its agents are already beginning to patrol American highways, train stations, and bus depots; (9) wage an undeclared drone war on numerous Muslim countries that delegates to the CIA the final call about some strikes that put civilians in jeopardy; (10) invoke the state-secrets privilege to dismiss lawsuits brought by civil-liberties organizations on dubious technicalities rather than litigating them on the merits; (11) preside over federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries; (12) attempt to negotiate an extension of American troops in Iraq beyond 2011 (an effort that thankfully failed); (14) reauthorize the Patriot Act; (13) and select an economic team mostly made up of former and future financial executives from Wall Street firms that played major roles in the financial crisis.

I submit that had Palin or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Rice or Jeb Bush or John Bolton or Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney proposed doing even half of those things in 2008, you'd have declared them unfit for the presidency and expressed alarm at the prospect of America doubling down on the excesses of the post-September 11 era. You'd have championed an alternative candidate who avowed that America doesn't have to choose between our values and our safety.

Yet President Obama has done all of the aforementioned things.
Posted by Ipso Facto on May 9, 2012 at 11:03 PM · Report this
@122 -- Thank you. Dan whining about Obama's use of the word monogamous is downright petty. He's supposed to come out in support of gay marriage and "monogamish" couples in the same day? Pick your battles, Dan.

Obama's use of the word monogamous was clearly meant to counteract the stereotype that all gay people are sex-crazed maniacs incapable of monogamy and unsuitable for marriage. Give the guy some fucking credit.
Posted by Amanda on May 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM · Report this
@85 -- Excellent point, and one that is being largely overlooked amid all the bitching.
Posted by Amanda on May 10, 2012 at 1:03 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 133

You do know that whatever device you keep posting on the internet from has animal products in it right?

I thought you were a vegan.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on May 10, 2012 at 5:55 AM · Report this
You give Obama way too much credit if you think him voicing his support for gay marriage would have changed the vote on Amendment One. Obama already forcefully stated his opposition to the amendment. It's not like people were voting for it because they thought Obama supported it.

The Repubs scheduled this vote for the primary date because they knew Dem voter turnout would be low. Obama could not have done anything to keep the amendment from passing.
Posted by mshawn on May 10, 2012 at 6:20 AM · Report this
I think the "states rights" cover is more a statement about reality--and a cover for the lack of any political power to effect a more serious change right now.

Realistically, Obama DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to change the federal law on this. Only Congress can do that--and unless he has massive majorities (such as in the Civil Rights Act), or control of the Supreme court (Interracial Marriage), or is willing to fight a physical war against half of the country (Civil War)--then there's not much more he can do about it at the present time than give his symbolic support.

If we all want this passed--then we need to work to retake congress and give the Dems a 62+ seat majority in the senate. It's as simple/hard as that...
Posted by jkkundert on May 10, 2012 at 6:46 AM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 136
Remember, when Lincoln freed the slaves, he first did so in the states that were in rebellion - not the ones in the union - and had no power to enforce that.

It was still a huge step forward. States rights also means marriage equality in Mass, New York, and here in Washington.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on May 10, 2012 at 7:26 AM · Report this
chibby 137
@11 what's 3% of 310 million? A lot of tax paying Americans.
Posted by chibby on May 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM · Report this
pfffter 138
@130 Get back to your Larouche street corner, you one trick pony, where I can cast disdainful glances full of contempt at you.
Posted by pfffter on May 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM · Report this
Hooray! Having gone out on the right with Dick Cheney on civil and human rights, he's gone out on the left with Dick Cheney on same-sex marriage:…
Posted by notfahfrombahston on May 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 140
I wonder, is Peter LaBarbara bleeding out of his eyes and ears yet? I hope so.
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on May 10, 2012 at 11:11 AM · Report this
Ipso Facto 141

That's pathetic.

Your ad hominem (and false) attack demonstrates intellectual weakness.

Respond to my arguments or shut the fuck up.
Posted by Ipso Facto on May 10, 2012 at 1:20 PM · Report this
If I hear one more gay person mock Obama for evolving or say something snarky like “finally”, I am going to barf. I was married for 23 years (with two kids) when my wife died of a brain tumor (brain tumors suck). During the years surrounding her death, I lost both of my parents and my brother lost two teenage sons (and my kids lost their closest and favorite cousins)…one in a car accident and one to suicide. Loss creates a whole new level of soul searching (and yes evolving) and I finally came out to myself as gay (even though I too shopped for my wife’s clothes …just like Marcus Bachmann). Having been married for 23 years, it also took me a year or two after I came out to evolve to the point where even I supported gay marriage….and I have never voted for a Republican in my life! I started seeing a guy and we moved in together about 4 years ago. My kids adore him. My 30 year old daughter marches in the local pride parade every year to show support for us and her gay friends. Her mother was from North Carolina and was particularly disgusted over Tuesday’s vote, and shared that disgust on Facebook. It took a bit longer for my 26 year old son to come out to his friends and admit that he had two dads….and when he did, his friends either said “cool” or “meh”….even the Republicans. He was ecstatic about Obama’s comments yesterday and also made a touching post on Facebook…and a donation to Obama’s campaign. PS My son also says that having two dads is a huge chick magnet for him when he is out at the bars.
Posted by RGoetz on May 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM · Report this
I guess I'm an outlier too, Dan. Of course I recognize the significance of Obama coming out personally in support of marriage rights. I get that it's a big step, that his record on gay rights has spoken itself, that this statement was both unexpected as well as a long time coming... I just wonder how much good it does for us to keep patting ourselves and each other on the back for expressing personal support for equality and fairness--particularly when those expressions of solidarity come with the caveat that it should be up to the voters to decide who is considered equal and deserving of fairness. It is no longer a question of states' rights when certain groups of people in those states are systematically deprived of equal protection under the law, when they are denied access to political and social institutions (along with the resources and influence those institutions provide), when discrimination is woven into the fabric of society through public policy. Allowing the majority to decide who is and is not entitled to full and equal citizenship always proves problematic for minorities seeking recognition and respect for their personhood. Given the pain and suffering these laws are causing every day in states where voters have apparently decided that "those people" do not deserve the same rights, I would say that maybe we should be treating personal expressions of support for marriage equality as a must, not a plus, from the politicians we elect to office.
Posted by ellipses on May 10, 2012 at 4:04 PM · Report this
Mr Goetz - Why half spoil a powerful post with that particular PS? It sort of seems positive on the surface, but here isn't the place where pointing out your son's owning a selfish motivation for being right-thinking will do most good. Mainly, though, the phenomenon itself borders on creepy appropriation, reminiscent of yaoi manga being annoyingly regarded as the near-exclusive property of straight Japanese women.

(It would make for an interesting side discussion to compare your son's experiences with those of someone who, like Mr Savage's son, was raised by a male couple.)

I agree that people move through life at individual paces, but can understand the "finally" set to some extent. Mrs Woolf once wrote that, of all great writers, Miss Austen was the most difficult to catch in the act of greatness. What one wouldn't give for a politician of similar skill, who could avoid being caught in the act.
Posted by vennominon on May 11, 2012 at 6:08 AM · Report this
@11. Thanks for your words. Even if we are ONLY 3% of the population(a number I think to be low IMO) then that is 3.5 million people. The rights and lives of that many people isn't a small consideration in any economic climate.

Posted by Global Traveler on May 11, 2012 at 6:42 AM · Report this
@11. Thanks for your words. Even if we are ONLY 3% of the population(a number I think to be low IMO) then that is 3.5 million people. The rights and lives of that many people isn't a small consideration in any economic climate.

Posted by Global Traveler on May 12, 2012 at 6:17 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.