Obama Could've Become A Hero This Week... 'Obama's Position On Gay Marriage Sustainable?' - PlumLine

[WillyT]

Is Obama's position on gay marriage sustainable?
Greg Sargent - Plum Line
August 5, 2010; 12:38 PM ET

<snip>

That seems to be one of the core political questions in the wake of the overturning of Proposition 8. How can the president continue opposing gay marriage while supporting the decision to strike down Prop 8, on the grounds that it's "discriminatory," as the White House said in a statement last night?

Making it more dicey, the White House statement also said that the president continues to push for "full equality" for gay and lesbian couples. How can that not include support for gay marriage?

This morning, senior White House adviser David Axelrod struggled to defend this position on MSNBC. Here's what he said:

"The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time. He felt that it was divisive. He felt that it was mean-spirited, and he opposed it at the time. So we reiterated that position yesterday. The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control. He's supports civil unions, and that's been his position throughout. So nothing has changed."

But as John Aravosis says: http://gay.americablog.com/2010/08/president-does-oppose-same-sex-marriage.html everything has changed.

Here's another problem: In the interview with MSNBC this morning, Axelrod clarified that Obama believes that gay marriage is an issue for states to decide, and it's true that Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, which codified a federal ban on gay marriage.

But as Michael Shear notes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR2010080502211.html his administration has yet to actively seek a repeal of DOMA, and is acquiescing to Congressional leaders who insist that the current political reality dictates that repeal is impossible. And his administration continues to defend DOMA in court against appeals.

Also: Obama has in the past claimed there's no inconsistency between opposing Prop 8 and opposing gay marriage by arguing he thinks gay marriage is wrong but we shouldn't be prohibiting it legally.

"When you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about," he said in a 2008 MTV interview. "Usually constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."

But DOMA does just this, and while Obama opposes it, actively moving to repeal is what would turn this argument from mere eloquence to reality.

The problem for the White House is that the Prop 8 decision will force this issue onto full boil nationally, just as the Arizona law did with illegal immigration. And heading into his 2012 reelection campaign, the gay and lesbian community -- an important Dem constituency -- will be demanding full support for gay marriage, and a repeal of DOMA.

They'll be demanding complete consistency, and won't want to be lectured about what is and isn't possible amid some arbitrarily defined "political reality."

<snip>

Link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/is_obamas_position_on_gay_marr.html

THIS... Is what happens when you dance with the BIGOTS!!!

This is NOT leadership, this is cowardess in the name of a political expediency at the the sacrifice of other human beings, and what many of us had hoped to be the soul of his Presidency.

:spitsnails:

:puke:

[Unvanguard]

1. The answer is probably "yes", it is sustainable.

Not in terms of reason, justice, or decency, no, but that has never been the point of the position, which was strained from the start, and given that it involves opposing same-sex marriage, is flatly inconsistent with reason, justice, and decency and would be even if it were coherent.

The question to ask is not, "Is there a principled account of Obama's position that explains with integrity all of his stances on same-sex marriage?"--certainly there is not--but rather "Are there differences in how certain stances look, politically, that explain the posture?" And there are. Obama will never (as president) utter the words "I support same-sex marriage", but conversely he will never utter a word against state-level expansions of same-sex marriage, and he will oppose, at least in brief, low-key statements, particular concrete manifestations of taking away marriage rights: this means that in policy terms he will never be an obstacle, exactly, to progress on this issue. At the same time, he will refuse to make his presidency or DOJ into anything even remotely resembling a site of "fierce advocacy" for same-sex marriage or even same-sex relationship recognition, though he will consistently support the latter in words, and would undoubtedly support a Congressional effort to deliver it: this means that, though not an obstacle, he will never be a prime mover either.

In short, it is an attempt to avoid being pinned as "anti-gay" by the Democratic base and the gay and lesbian part of that base in particular, while simultaneously having a vague and weak enough stance that it will be hard to run against him and the Democrats on "Defeat the gay agenda!" grounds. In terms of minimizing his degree of political trouble from this issue, this is probably the right approach to take: hence, perfectly sustainable. In terms of other important values, like actually advancing equality and justice, obviously it loses much of its worth.

[WillyT]

2. A Lot Of Beautiful Words, Reached Through Considerable Thought...

that ultimately, mean NOTHING... to the voting public.

I think your analysis is spot-on... and THAT is the problem.

:shrug:

[Unvanguard]

3. I agree that it is a problem. I admit to being at a loss about what to do about it.

Partly, it is a product of background conditions, in that there remain substantial obstacles in public opinion and in Congress to advancing LGBT rights; partly, it is a problem of mentality, in that between the 2004 election and Clinton's early trouble with this issue, many Democratic strategists undoubtedly see it as a toxic loser; partly, it is a failure of empathy, in that socially-conservative Democrats obviously, and many nominally-sympathetic Democrats also, just don't see equality for LGBT people as a particularly important concern.

There are things we can do about the first, painfully slowly, but it is hard to know what we can do about the second and the third, except protest some more and hope it goes through...

[jaxx]

4. Who's the bigot?

If the President was demanding that his personal thought on gay marriage has to be the only one, then you might have an argument. He isn't, and you don't. Instead he is opening doors for LGBT people, making sure they have rights they have never gotten before.

[Unvanguard]

5. He isn't "making sure" of much at all

except when it costs him absolutely nothing.

That's the problem. His verbal non-support for same-sex marriage, likely insincere, is but a part of this political reality.

[Touchdown]

10. What are you talking about "opening doors"? He isn't doing a damn thing for GLBT people.

What mountain are you people not getting enough oxygen on?

[jaxx]

11. Yes, he has.

Extended FMLA to gays http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37837927/

Gay couples hospital visitation rights and decision making http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/15/politics/main6400926.shtml

We all know he's working to get DADT stopped. Slow as it is, the congress is the one who has to change the law. Saying he has done nothing is wrong.

[Touchdown]

12. You are ill informed on DADT.

He is holding Congress back on DADT, not the other way around. He brokered the "compromise" that stalled the repeal's passage until he can take credit for it... err.. so this bigoted survey can be finished to find out just how icky the homos are to straight boys in uniform. A survey that he commissioned, and is just fine with it's bigoted content as he has said nothing to denounce it when it became public.

On GLBT Issues, The President is the problem. There is no sugar coating it. Dick Cheney is more gay friendly than Barack Obama.

[jaxx]

13. No, I'm not.

The only way for DADT to stop is for congress to change the law. The survey was ridiculous, but the military is said to use them for other things too...didn't you hear about the survey for allowing African-Americans in the military? I don't think the President 'commissioned' the survey, but he and Gates and Mullen approved the Pentagon doing it. They want DADT stopped.

[Touchdown]

15. Congress would have passed the repeal in June had Obama not stopped them.

He did commission the survey. Gates wanted it. The President agreed.
There never was any survey prior to integrating blacks into the military. Truman just did it.

You are ill informed.

[jaxx]

18. There certainly was a survey.

I'm not the one who is ill informed, you are.



**Turns out there was polling of military troops back in the 1940s. White soldiers were given a chance to say they didn't want to serve or live with blacks — and boy did they!

Eighty-five percent of white troops surveyed in the years leading up to President Harry Truman's executive order that integrated the troops said they wanted separate service clubs. (In the month leading up to Truman's 1948 order, a Gallup poll showed 63 percent of American adults favored segregation in the military.)

Wonk Room's Igor Volsky hit up the National Archives and scored some of these surveys: "While smaller, these racial polls share some common questions with the DADT survey. In fact, in some instances one can even replace 'negro' for 'gay' and end up with today’s questionnaire. Both polls ask servicemembers if they objected to working alongside minorities, how they felt serving with minorities, how effective minorities are in combat and if their feelings have changed about the minority after serving with them. (Interestingly, 77% of respondents said they had more favorable opinion)."

The survey Volsky posts (embedded below) appears to be for white troops only, though an additional section includes tallies from black soldiers, so it can be assumed they, too, were surveyed, though it's unclear whether the respondents were equally numbered.

MORE>> http://www.queerty.com/congratulations-obama-your-dadt-survey-is-just-as-offensive-as-trumans-was-65-years-ago-20100720/

[Touchdown]

19. You were wrong about DADT. Just admit it and move on.

I know what bullshit your trying to pull by dodging back to the 1940s

[jaxx]

20. I'm not wrong about DADT.

And I don't have a clue about what you think I'm 'trying to pull'. The 40s survey shows the military has been stupid before about these type of things. Look, I'm on your side. I'd like nothing more than to see DADT stopped and for gay marriages to be legal in all 50 states. But saying the President is doing nothing isn't true.

[Touchdown]

21. Then prove he isn't doing nothing. Don't bring up 60 year old...

long resolved controversies to distract from the subject matter.

I'll concede the point that it isn't true he's doing nothing. He is actively sabotaging the repeal of DADT. That is actually doing something. My bad!

[jaxx]

22. You chose to ignore the things I mentioned.

Evidently you also choose to ignore the fact he has said he wants it repealed. He's fighting the military on this too...it's full of repukes.

I have a stake in this, and in all the gay rights. My gay sister is transexual in the fundie capitol of the country, ColoSpgs. You might have heard of the place...Dobson country, just down I25 from you. She and her partner have been together for 30+ years, they are active in the gay rights movement and get up to Denver to participate there too. She has been mistreated by the law and by the courts, fighting it all the way, and winning at least her sex changed on the DL. The things being done, FMLA, the hospital stuff, is very important to them. Please don't assume I'm some dope who is a phobe and knows nothing about what is going on. That is not the way it is. Every step is important and leads to the next step.

Peace.

[Touchdown]

23. He says. He says. Talk is cheap.

I'm not ignoring anything you are saying. I just don't see any proof from the White House. I think you honestly believe Obama, because you still have some benefit of the doubt. I no longer do. I truly think he hates us.

[jaxx]

25. If he hated you nothing would be getting done, just like before.

There would be no workplace protections, no hate crime protections.

[mitchtv]

6. coulda, woulda, shoulda

He'll never be more than a politician. He's good at it, but not very aggressive. We won't get much help from him.

[katandmoon]

7. K&R

[BzaDem]

8. The truth is that Obama's position made it more likely that he was able to nominate Sotomayor/Kagan

which might give the Supreme Court a 5-4 majority to uphold the anti-prop-8 ruling yesterday.

I sometimes think that some people would rather have Obama come out in full public support (even if it would have hurt his chances in becoming President) than have a Supreme Court with the personnel to strike down anti-gay-marriage laws.

[Unvanguard]

9. That's an argument worth taking seriously.

But I'm not sure that I agree that Republican senators are less aware of this potentiality than we are. To the contrary, I think they mostly suspect what is probably correct, that Obama appointed two social liberals who will probably rule correctly (incorrectly, in the view of the Republican senators) on this challenge. The conservative Democrats, conversely, are probably not too concerned as long as none of the nominees is a clear supporter of same-sex marriage: they have political cover as long as that's the case. The details of Obama's own position don't alter the dynamics much, I think.

[VMI Dem]

14. I don't think its political expediency. I think he is a homophobe.

If you are going to piss off half the electorate, why not piss off the bigoted half?

[Touchdown]

16. +1

[Touchdown]

17. +1

[WillyT]

24. Evening Kick !!!

:kick:

[MadMaddie]

26. Okay I have a theory

If President Obama came out and said he supported Gay Marriage (before November)without the backing of the law what would the result be?

Here are a few things that would happen
1. The Talking heads would explode with more lies and disinformation
2. The Religious right would be re-invigorated, right now the religious right is losing money and laying off their workers.


Now what happens when the Prop 8 decision moves up to the next court and the court finds no issues with the ruling? It goes to the Supreme Court, now the Supreme Court will either take the case or not. If they don't then the judges ruling stands. If they do take the case, the court will have to make a decision they would have to find the facts that the judge put forth invalid (which they can't his arguments were pretty sound). If they say the judge should have recused himself, then the Scalia/Cheney issue will be brought up.

If the Supreme Court finds in favor of the Gay Couples then Game over, the President can say it is the law of the land. End of conversation, the states will have to follow the law.