Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Uh...this isn't all that great.
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.
Not what you want to hear. But the way it is, out here in RealityVille.
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.
But.
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.
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.
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.
Meh.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you're not happy with this, there is something seriously wrong with you. He needs your support more than ever. Wingnuts are going to explode in money and anger. Time for the gays to turn those glitter bombs into money bombs - or plan to start bitching to President Romney.
I'm sure he will be all ears.
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.
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.
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).
If you're over 55, you were probably scared of black Presidents anyway, and space aliens.
"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.
Thank You, Mr. President!
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.
Let's hope it was also uncharacteristically well-timed, and it delivers a tipping point rather than an electoral debacle.
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.
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.
This.
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.
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 uhhhh...now.
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.
If we can go from a country where woman and racial minorities could not vote then we can elect an alternative party candidate that is pro-equality, pro-civil liberties, and pro-peace. If we went from thinking we’d never elect openly-gay politicians and a black President then we can elect an alternative party candidate.
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.
Otherwise un-occupy the 2party system of poverty and war.
Look up on YouTube:
Gary Johnson Defends Gay Marriage
www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8_w5Spl7iE
Presidential Candidate Roseanne Barr Roseanne On LGBT Issues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDEFARusA…
Presidential Candidate Rocky Anderson On LGBT Issues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BCDdWtiE…
Presidential Candidate Dr. Jill Stein On LGBT Issues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdN4E9exj…
Presidential Candidate Stephen Durham On LGBT Issues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=142BMV9MR…
Look up online:
Romney Obama the Same?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d…
Bush Obama, Same Old Drama
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html
21 liberals should vote for alternative party candidates instead of Obama in 2012
my.firedoglake.com/barefootaccountant/20…;;;
TY for posting!
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."
This is a day to celebrate!
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.
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.
You're absolutely right that it accomplished something for his reelection chances, but I couldn't care less about how this benefits him.
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.
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…
Things improve because people like this never needed polls to tell them when to do the right thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywImcNViP…
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…
(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.
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.
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.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/…
Oh, Unicorn. It’s always one step forward and then two steps back.