"What's in a name...

[The Doctor.]

Barack Obama on Equal/Civil Rights;


Barack Obama co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes laws to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes it should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Barack Obama believes we need to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. His campaign literature says, "The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve."

Barack Obama believes gays and lesbians should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexuals.

Barack Obama Believes that Same-sex couples should have 100% of all the rights married couples do;

"I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license. I support the notion that all people – gay or straight – deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else."

So why can't he just call it marriage?

Here's a hint;

"I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my number one priority; is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game." Barack Obama, 02/04/04
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=3931

Well then, what on Earth does that mean?

It means he knows that the ignorant/bigoted chunk of America, basically the whole of the RW, do not grasp concepts or ideas very well... they only respond to words. As the RW machine has known for years, words are the trigger for their base to act. Words, sound bytes, and talking points that inspire outrage and bigotry have been their most effective tool for riling up their base. That fixation on just the right or wrong word is also their weakness... among other things.

So here we are, about to swear in a guy who, for all intents and purposes, is 100% for Equality, but is just savvy enough not to activate the rabid RW base and create a wedge-issue paradise for the enemies of civil rights.

Smartest. Mutherfucker. In. The. Room.

The man who knows which battles to pick when will win them. Wouldn't we all love to watch Barack Obama pick 'Gay Marriage' legislation, loud and proud, to try and ram through congress just to watch it go down in defeat over, and over, and over while the economy, war, education, and health care all go straight to hell through the great fissures formed?

I really don't think so.

Without a filibuster-proof majority, picking battles that cannot be won is just the way to ultimate failure. Instead, why not build success where it can be had, especially on the economy, while letting the courts reinforce the validity of Equal Rights. Why not work towards that just-within-reach Democratic supermajority rather than dash all hope for it in a national firestorm? Why not pin down some small victories like the repeal of DADT and DOMA, and passage of ENDA before tackling full equality legislation?

Because we all want it all right now.

No, we all want it yesterday.

Yes, it is more painful to some than to others.

But what if 'right now' means 'not for another 20 or 30 years'?

Well, the man who beat one of the smartest people on the planet in the primaries will be making that decision. And that's a good thing.
We have, for the first time ever, a president who is 100% pro-gay rights, minus one word for nothing more than strategic purposes, and he's being trashed by people before he's even had the chance to do anything. The best hope ever, and probably for many years to come is HERE NOW, and ready to act in the interest of Equality.

He could throw away the one shot we have at seeing REAL Equality for all Americans by caving in to the injured, angry, and impatient wishes of "NOW!" and accomplish nothing... for anyone.

Or he could weather the scorn, all the better for how off-guard it will put the fundies and bigots, and build success upon success until Equal Rights are inexorable.

He may not, even then, call it 'marriage', but with 100% of the same rights and responsibilities; a rose by any other name is still a rose.


Now I know what comes next; the super-fun part where I'm called a 'bigot' and the perennial misconstructions and false accusations are made, so I'll just deal with all that now so I can cut and paste to save time later;

1) Anger is real and justified. This is a painful issue made more so by just how close the reality has become.

2) I have not ever, nor will I ever, tell anyone to 'shut up and wait'. Oh, I know, saying that it can't happen right now sounds like 'just wait for it', but it's not. In reality, no one should wait. We should continue to donate, write, march, call, and convince people this cause is not only just, but a fundamental core of human rights no one can deny in good conscience.

That translates to; 'don't shut up, and don't wait'. It is important to keep pressure where it needs to be so that when all the pieces are in place, it cannot be stopped by anything.

3) I have not told anyone 'how to behave'. Sure, I mentioned in the past that certain types of behavior, such as attacking one's friends and allies, are irrational... but that's no skin off my nose. How one chooses to behave is only a reflection on them. So have at it.

4) I am, and have always been a friend and ally of the GLBT community. I have held and participated in fundraisers of various sorts, written and spoken on issues, and even personally enlightened a handful of now ex homophobes. And yes… just like Stephen Colbert, I have many ‘gay friends’. Whatever you call me will not change those facts, nor will it dissuade me in any way. For those few who cannot get past the need to lash out- believe what you will... it cannot affect me in the least.

5) I am objective. Not having a personal emotional stake in this allows me to look at the whole picture, and it’s less of a picture and more of a surgical plan. The concern that Obama taking action too soon and without requisite support could set Equal Rights back by decades is a very real, very substantial concern. Anyone who chooses to engage in rational thought, and allows themselves to recognize the tactics of the enemies of equality can see this.

Again, I’ve taken a long look at a cold hard reality and concluded that raw passion, for all its value for so many purposes, cannot win the day from Obama’s White House. It can help in the streets, in the papers, on stage and screen, in ballot initiatives, and in a deluge of calls to representatives at every level of government. But in reality, the end game is a year or two off at best… the good news is that with Obama as President, victory is inevitable.
Unfortunately, I haven’t a choice but to live in reality… it’s why I’m here on DU. It’s why I frequent DBs all over the internet… because one can find verifiable reality, and those that cannot live there are exposed very quickly when they cannot produce the facts or engage in reason to back up their false assertions.


In this reality, when something is 100% of anything minus a name, then he who picks it up, studies its petals, touches its silken luster, and is pricked by its thorns will certainly call it a ‘rose’… and I promise it will smell as sweet.

[dipsydoodle]

1. I thought What

was on second :shrug:

[The Doctor.]

2. That too...

"Second" can be a name too.

Smartass.

[dipsydoodle]

3. I'd say the correct answer

to what's in name is nothing unless you're American. It's only the USA which has this dreadful reputation for giving words from the English language a power way beyond their original meaning.

Goodnight.

[Starry Messenger]

6. Shakespeare? I thought he was English.

http://www.englishforums.com/English/NameWilliamShakespeare/bqnqx/post.htm

[The Doctor.]

4. I know it's a Friday night, but

is this really either too well-understood or rational?

That would actually be a relief were it so.

[EFerrari]

5. No, it's just too wrong.

It's akin to having "White" and "Colored" signs up everywhere but some people at their own discretion integrating lunch counters.

Names matter. Labels matter. Words matter.

[The Doctor.]

7. Then use them.

There's nothing 'separate but equal' in identical marriage rights. Who gets to call it marriage?

The married... no matter where or how, are married.

I've been to two gay weddings... they were married.


Are you saying that if you renamed a rose, say... 'marvin', would that change anything about the reality of the rose except for you? Would you look at Marvin and see something blue that was red before? Would the scent change? Would it no longer have thorns?

No. The name, therefore, is up to you.

So you call it a 'rose'.

Unless, of course, you have a thing for 'Marvin'.

[dipsydoodle]

8. For those who've never found it

here's the UK's Civil Partnership Act : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040033_en_1

I didn't know the exact background but another UK Duer pointed out to me a while back that our House of Lords effectively extracted the word "marriage", as being politically expedient to do so , with the result that the Act was passed thus giving the Gay community the full legal equal rights they had so long sought.

So - pulling the rug on an exact specific word achieved the overall desired result lock stock and barrel.

I am a widower by definition - my wife died and I am male. I have yet to figure exactly what would determine , in the event of the demise of one partner under the Civil Partnership Act , what would decide whether the remaining partner would have the status of widow or widower. :shrug:

On the subject of employment etc we already had this : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031661.htm and any reference to pension rights of partners contained therein would have been overridden by the later Civil Partnership Act.

Good morning.