President Obama's response to the Prop 8 ruling

[jgraz]

The White House issued a terse statement on the ruling that didn’t endorse or reject the judge’s conclusions.

“The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans,” spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

The official statement didn’t reiterate Obama’s opposition to gay marriage, but a spokesman said his position on that issue was unchanged.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=404C2901-18FE-70B2-A8F23F34270F7059

[VMI Dem]

1. That position being opposition to civil rights for gay citizens.

:mad:

[elleng]

106. What about this don't you understand?

'opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory'

[derby378]

2. He can't hide behind a press spokesman forever

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/40683

[msanthrope]

40. He should not--and will not opine on a matter on appeal. That's respectful, right, and proper.

Look, it's disrespectful to the judiciary to comment on an ongoing case when you head another branch of government.

Take a look at the Repukes in the Senate who scream "ACTIVIST JUDGES!!"

Should that be that the President should do? Comment on a matter that is not before his branch of government?

Also, the Solicitor General will likely be involved at some point. It is not proper for the Executive Branch to comment on this substantively outside of court pleadings.

[derby378]

50. As a matter of executive vs. judicial responsibilities, you are correct...

...but there is still a fundamental Constitutional argument that underlies both branches of government, and sooner or later, Obama will have to make some kind of statement in regards to how gay marriage relates to our basic Constitutional rights, not religious law.

[msanthrope]

54. Then he should do it like Citizens United.....

After SCOTUS ruled, and the issue was resolved in that branch, and before the Congress took it up.

It is despotism for the Executive Branch to try to unduly influence the judiciary.

That's why the court allows for filings.

[seattleblue]

57. The Federal government is neither a plaintiff or defendant here.

There is no reason to believe the Solicitor General will be involved in this case. I don't know where you are getting that it is "disrespectful" for others in government to comment on cases. It is done all the time. Should members of Congress be silent also? Governors? All these, including Obama, have the right to comment. That is why the Judiciary is independent and the judges are there for life.

[msanthrope]

62. Holy crap. Did you miss the fact that this is happening in a branch of the Federal Government?

Are you unaware of the fact that a federal court, particularly an appellate one, can order the Solicitor General to opine?

Do you really think this case will not involve the Solicitor General of the United States at some point, particularly if it goes to SCOTUS?

And yes--the Separation of Powers demands that Branches keep their substantive opinions to themselves. It is respectful to allow the judiciary to do their jobs without political comment.

Should members of Congress refrain from screaming "activist judges!!!" while cases are on appeal? Yes.

Do you not recognize that each party to the lawsuit...the plaintiff, the defendant, the intervenors are ENTITLED to a fair hearing in front of a judiciary free from political influence???

It is despotism for the Executive Branch to intrude on the juduciary....and Jeebus, I cannot IMAGINE the pitchfork and torch crowd that would have erupted on this site had Bush ever done the same.

[seattleblue]

70. A federal court can request the SG to give an opinion.

It can't order it. You are apparently unaware of that fact.

[msanthrope]

84. No, they are actually orders.....

Invitations:
When the Court is considering whether or not to grant review in a case in which the government is not a party, it sometimes issues an order inviting the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States. The brief filed in response to such an order is an amicus curiae brief at the petition stage (see Types of briefs), but it is often referred to informally as an "invitation."

http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/help.html


Do you think these are the types of invitations that come with an R.s.v.p.?

I await your citation of contrary authority.

Thank you for conceding my other points.

******************************
I once watched a lawyer make an argument to a federal judge that a "Request for Production" was optional, since the word, "request" was used.

Do you think that lawyer won that argument?

[seattleblue]

91. Your other 'points' were banal phrases so I didn't comment on them.

You have a request for production ORDER confused with an ORDER inviting a brief. When the Order is on the back end you have to comply. When it is on the front end (Which is almost never the case in court proceedings) you don't have to. The court can order the Executive branch, or anyone else, to turn over evidence in a case. They can't order an opinion. I'm sorry you can't see the difference here. If they could order a brief the SG could just reply with 'We support the petitioner' or 'We don't support the petitioner'. Now would that be helpful? No they can't order it. In the real world if the SC asks for a brief from the SG (or anyone else) they are going to get it. Not because they have ordered it , because at that level everyone plays nice with each other.

[msanthrope]

95. Dude, sorry the point of my story flew over your head. Lighten up, Francis.

I wasn't conflating orders, merely repeating a funny story. Jeebus.

And yes, until you cite an actual authority, I'm gonna go with the DOJ over an DU newbie who signed on two weeks ago--who for such a low post count, seems to have quite the affinity for Mormon threads.

It's an order. A velvet-gloved one, I will grant you.

Heck, I could be wrong. It's happened. But I'm not wrong at all about the President refraining from comment on an ongoing case.

Or, Mr. First Amendment lawyer---do tell us all just how you would react if one of your clients, while on appeal, was subject to the President commenting negatively on her case.

Would you back Mr. Obama's right to comment and screw your client? Or would you see Mr. Obama as what he is--head of a Branch of government, attempting to politically influence the judiciary?

You sound old enough to remember what happened when Nixon opined on Manson, during his trial. Think that was a good idea? (and yes, I know you do civil and Manson was criminal....)

[seattleblue]

99. Did you have these concerns when Obama commented on the Gates arrest?

Actually the jury in the Manson case probably would not have known about Nixon's comments except that Manson himself showed the headline to the jury. Also his female co-defendants stood up in court and shouted there was no point to have a trial anymore because of Nixon's comments. So it was hard for the Manson attorneys to successfully argue prejudice to the court. Would I think it would be a good idea for the President to comment on a client's case? If he was against me I suppose not. But Prop 8 is being heard by experienced judges and not juries. I think the danger of prejudice is really pretty minimal here.

We will have to agree to disagree on whether it is a "order" or not. I had no idea this was a Mormon thread. I thought it was a Prop 8 thread. Interesting that for being here a short time I already have a stalker checking on what threads I post in. I can only remember posting in 2 "Mormon" threads vs. the dozens I have posted on other topics. I asked for someone to back up an assertion they made about the federal government and they couldn't. Some were upset that I had asked for actual sources for a wild claim. Life goes on.

[msanthrope]

101. You mean, after the Gates case was dropped? Because the

President didn't comment until after the charges were dropped. There was no ongoing criminal case to prejudice, was there?

Regardless of whether the Prop 8 case is heard by judges, the parties themselves have an interest in a judiciary that is free from political influence. If the President spoke out against your client, would you tell them to relax--the federal judiciary can't be prejudiced? Please.

"I had no idea this was a Mormon thread. I thought it was a Prop 8 thread."

Welcome to DU.


Edited to add--I took a look at the thread you referenced. Why didn't a lawyer of your caliber immediately recognize the Bob Jones University case and the BYU/Mormon connections to it? You don't remember the Reagan scandal? Help posters out.

[seattleblue]

102. My memory was faulty.

I thought Obama had commented immediately after the arrest but looking at a couple of links it appears he was commenting a few days later. I don't know exactly when the charges were dropped but I stand corrected.

I had no memory of the BYU connections to Bob Jones and I am not sure which Reagan scandal you reference. I know some of the posters seem to think I was some undercover Mormon, which I had a good chuckle over, but I don't really follow their issues very closely.

[cherokeeprogressive]

103. Fuck respectful. Fuck "right". Fuck proper.

My GAY Daughter won't be voting for him until he says EVERYONE IS EQUAL and EVERYONE DESERVES THE SAME RIGHTS.

She'll be voting in her FIRST general election in 2012.

If President Obama doesn't support EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL before then, she'll either abstain or vote for someone else. I fully support that decision.

I'm so fucking tired of debating this... is this a site that promotes EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE, or is it a site that couldn't give a fuck about a certain group as long as The Chosen One gets re-elected?

Makes me wanna PUKE.

[Autumn]

3. "didn’t endorse or reject the judge’s conclusions. "

well duh.

[jgraz]

4. You can almost TASTE the Fierce Advocacy

:eyes:

[Autumn]

5. Well you know, if he is for or against it,

either way it's going to piss people off. And he isn't going to go that far. No rocking the boat.

[jgraz]

6. You nailed it: "no rocking the boat"

I think we have his 2012 campaign slogan: "Boat Stability You Can Believe In".

[YOY]

7. LOL!!!

n/t

[Autumn]

8. LOL

:spray: you are priceless! But in all seriousness that is the saddest comment I have ever heard them say. This was a wonderful thing that happened, it was the right thing to do and they should just say it.

[27inCali]

38. oh man, I'm usually defending the guy

but that's a pretty funny god damn statement precisely but it cleaves right to the truth. Let's be fair though: and please actually read what I'm saying here before you cream me but........

Obama did come out against Prop. 8 -even cut an ad against it that ran in CA while in the final stages of the Presidential Election. If he had been a total political coward, that wouldn't have happened. By doing that he is implicitly saying Gay marriage should be legal in CA, which means he is on the right side of this specific battle even if he is not jumping into the greater war in that way that we all know he should.

HE SHOULD HAVE NEVER SAID "FIERCE ADVOCACY" IF HE DIDN'T REALLY MEAN IT AND HE DESERVES TO BE CALLED OUT FOR IT. If he had been honest he would have said, "I'll work to change whatever I don't have to get in a big ugly fight over."

all the same, it seems like he's not going to be standing in the way as progress continues.

Instead of dwelling on how weak his support is, should we not be talking about which state are we going to try to flip next? New York? New Hampshire? Oregon? Should Gay activists be coordinating with the pot legalization activists to help drive Gay friendly young people to the polls? Please don't laugh, I think there is serious potential there.

[msanthrope]

52. You should defend him here.

How is it proper for a sitting President to opine on an active case, on appeal?

It is disrespectful to the judiciary to presume to tell them your opinion when you are another branch of government, outside court filings.

It's also disrespectful to the parties involved, who are entitled to a full and fair hearing, free of political influence, no matter how frakin' wrongheaded they are.

Separation of powers means keeping your mouth shut while the other branch makes its sausage.

[Sapphocrat]

98. Obama never "cut an ad" against Prop 8.

What are you talking about?

[CTLawGuy]

107. It did say that he was against prop 8

I'm sorry it wasn't written to the degree of enthusiasm that you wanted, but it is hardly "taking no position."

[msanthrope]

35. Not for anything, but this is showing RESPECT to the judiciary.

It's the goddamn repukes who scream at another branch of government "ACTIVIST JUDGE" that are being disrespectful. Separation of powers, damnit.

President Obama knows this case has a ways to go. It would NOT be meet for him to opine on it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

104. Tastes like... HYPOCRISY.

[terrya]

9. I have to admit...that kind of equivocating is just plain masterful.

If you like that sort of thing.

Apparently, Axlerod was on some news show today, reaffirming President Obama's opposition to same-sex marriage, but saying he supports civil unions. That statement is rather pointless, since the ruling was about same-sex marriage.

This ruling has nothing to do with "religious freedom", so the bigots can STFU about that bullshit. This is about civil marriage, period. With the 14th Amendment to the Constitution backing that up. The Democrats, and this White House, can come out for marriage equality with the law, the facts, and the Constitution supporting them. As they should.

[laughingliberal]

71. I like how the judge put down the nonsense about civil unions being equal to marriage. nt

[Foo Fighter]

87. I missed that.

Do you have a link or a quote? Hell, even paraphrasing it would do.

[jefferson_dem]

10. He is right that Prop 8 is "divisive and discriminatory"...

But that statement falls far way short of where he should carry the discussion. On this issue, middle-ground, ambivalent equivocations will not do. It's past time for him (and all statesmen) to step up and take a PROUD stand for ACTUAL equality. Anything short of that is not acceptable.

[jgraz]

11. Wow. Very nicely said.

:thumbsup:

[jefferson_dem]

12. Indeed jgraz.

On this issue, we stand united. :thumbsup:

Here's a thread I started this morning. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=397952&mesg_id=397952

[jgraz]

13. Not to start an argument but...

does this give you some perspective on those of us who have similar frustration over Obama's tepid support for the Public Option or derivatives reform?

[Yavin4]

14. Weee!! Another Let's Bash Obama Thread

Even though we've got a tremendous victory last night, let's not rejoice with the good news.

Instead let's start yet another bash Obama thread with the hopes of turning the entire DU community against a sitting Democratic president.

Weee!!!!

Because it was oh so much fun when Republicans ran things for 8 years just ask the people in New Orleans!

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yavin4]

19. And You Don't Get To Pick and Choose Who Responds to Threads

Either.

[jgraz]

20. But I can point out that your response was completely worthless

and only intended to stir the shit. Run along now, the adults need to talk.

[JVS]

59. If only they'd bring back that option in the ignore function!

[msanthrope]

43. And let's forget that Obama is showing respect to the judiciary, unlike the Repukes

by not commenting substantively on a case on appeal.

I mean, when is it ever a good idea for the sitting President to opine on an active case?

Separation of powers, people.

[Ignis]

60. "with the hopes of turning the entire DU community against a sitting Democratic president"

Please provide a link to where jgraz stated that this was the intent of this thread.

Unless, of course, you can read minds. :wow:

Quick, what number am I thinking of?

[jgraz]

65. Sorry, Yavin only responds when you're talking to someone else.

Try starting up a reasonable discussion in another thread. He'll be along sooner or later.

[Ignis]

69. Damn! I was really hoping he could help me with that number.

I've already forgotten it. :(

[jefferson_dem]

22. Sure.

I hear the frustration and generally respect the persepctives of those who fight for boldness.

It might seem tough to reconcile but...I guess the difference is that I don't this as a political / public policy issue, which (by definition) requires some measure of compromise to achive progress. Marriage equality is even more fundamental and should be recognized, and celebrated, as a constitutionally guanteed civil right. That's why i will continue to be disappointed in this President, who more than any other should know the true significance of equal protection under the law.

It time for leadership. I recall arguing with my fellow Democrats in 2000 that we should all support and promote gay marriage. Kerry should have stepped up in 2004. Obama certainly should have stepped up in 2008. He must do so now.

[jgraz]

25. IMHO, all three issues are about fundamental rights

Whether that be the right to marry, the right to healthcare or the right to a fair shot at the pursuit of happiness. In addition, lack of support for gay marriage, while morally reprehensible, won't have the same negative effect on the country as lack of affordable healthcare or a reboot of the house-of-cards financial market.

[Ignis]

15. Well said.

:thumbsup:

...Off to read your linked thread now.

[ProSense]

17. It is important that he supports the decision

“His position on Prop. 8 has always been clear. What has not been clear is how he squares his position for equality with his refusal to embrace actual equality in marriage. That is unclear, increasingly unclear, and there’s no good reason to explain it,” said Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry. “That’s an unsatisfying position that does nothing but frustrate those of us who look to him as the champion he promised to be. ... He’s not gaining anything, and Judge Walker just made that crystal clear.”

<...>

“When President Bill Clinton — the president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law — has now called for overturning it, and supports freedom to marry, joined by people like Cindy McCain and Laura Bush, President Obama needs to get on the right side of this cause of justice,” Freedom to Marry's Wolfson said.

For their part, same-sex marriage critics say that would be a politically treacherous course for the president, particularly in the wake of Walker’s ruling.

While federal judges are routinely denounced as judicial activists for overturning laws passed by state legislatures and Congress, those bodies are held in such low esteem that most voters can’t muster a great deal of outrage at intrusions from the courts.

link

The President has committed to repealing DOMA and supports equal rights for all Americans.

What's not clear in the claim that this is a "politically treacherous" course for the President. His position is the same as when he campaigned, and it's not like Republicans support equal rights.

[jgraz]

18. "The President has committed to repealing DOMA and supports equal rights for all Americans"

And I'm committed to publicly praising him once he actually does something.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

26. Hence the "manners" comment

You might want to look that one up.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mkultra]

36. +1

Anyone who thinks they order people to not post is a douchebag.

[jgraz]

56. Aw, does somebody need a time out?

:nopity:

[Solomon]

28. Come on Yavin. Let's never miss an opportunity for bashing

Obama. I was partying about it until some people reminded me that Obama hasn't done a damn thing in 2 years.

[Yavin4]

30. What Do You Want Him To Do?

How many fights do you want him to take on all at once?

[YOY]

68. 'Bout the same. We'd prefer that he actually fought for us...crazy I know!

Call it "dance with the one who brought you" mentality!

[BootinUp]

78. What if his way actually does produce better results?

(I hope smoke doesn't come from your ears thinking about that too hard.)

[jgraz]

88. Ask me again after we lose Congress this November.

:eyes:

[YOY]

105. You know what they call doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

I do love the quaint personal attack though...very condescending and alluding mental inferiority, yet without being vulgar...how...special.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

34. Did he say he supports the decision? I missed that part.

(Opposing Prop 8 does not equal supporting the decision.)

[ProSense]

39. "Opposing Prop 8 does not equal supporting the decision"

No opposing Prop 8 = opposing the decision opposing Prop 8.

The arguments and what passes for logic get more ridiculous as time goes by.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

44. Okay... explain this then:

President Obama opposes Prop 8 but does not support same-sex marriage.

So send him your snarky comments because he seems to see distinctions where you do not.

Constitutionally based legal *decisions* are not binary thumbs-up/thumbs-down deals. (That's the ruling.)

They are chains of reasoning and argument that one can support or oppose independent of the desired ruling.

Had the supreme court appointed Al Gore President because he was taller than W I would have liked the outcome but been appalled by the decision.

[ProSense]

47. He has an official position

and that is supporting equality. He is not actively opposing any effort to advance equality, but is actively opposing any effort to deny equal rights.

The only thing the President can do in this instance is what he promised: to work to repeal DOMA.

[Foo Fighter]

89. "He is not actively opposing any effort to advance equality..."

Wow! The fierceness of his advocacy has me positively swooning!

[msanthrope]

42. He SHOULD NOT SAY ANYTHING about the decision!!!!

Seriously--it's a case on appeal, and it's NOT respectful of the judiciary for one branch of government to voice its opinion.....

That kind of crap is for the Senate repukes....not for the head of the Executive Branch.

Further, at some point, the Solicitor General will be involved. It's NOT proper for the Executive Branch to comment susbstantively outside of court filings at this time....

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

45. Correct

[msanthrope]

48. Thank you!! This isn't a "Bash Obama" opportunity. n/t

[msanthrope]

46. He SHOULD NOT opine on a current case. It is disrespectful to the

judiciary as it is one branch telling the other what to do.

Further, this will likely involve the Solicitor General...therefore the only proper, substantive Executive Branch response should come from court pleadings....

Leave it to the Senate Repukes to be rude and comment on the judge and the case....

It is NEVER a good idea for a sitting President to opine on current cases.

[ProSense]

51. But the

DNC can issue a statement

The President's opposition to Prop 8 is not unknown, neither is his opinion on DOMA.

[msanthrope]

55. Kaine ain't in the Executive Branch. I have no problem with that. n/t

[havocmom]

83. Talkin and doin are not the same thing

And I agree with jgraz. Will praise him when he actually does something. Not even waiting for anything fierce, but some real action instead of just nodding and talking about it.

[msanthrope]

41. How should one branch of government attempt to carry the

discussion going on in another branch????

How should the sitting President attempt to influence current cases on appeal?

He's being respectful to the judiciary, here, by not telling them what he thinks their job is.

Unlike the Senate Repukes, who scream "activist judge!!!" and do not defer to the separation of powers.

[jberryhill]

96. Is he arguing the appeal before the Ninth Circuit

I think he knows the issue is bigger than him and he is not going to make it about him.

He is Article II. The courts are Article III.

[JohnnyLib2]

27. Disappointing.

K & R

[bigwillq]

76. But not surprising.

Obama is by no means fierce, if you know what I mean.

[jgraz]

29. I love that people are unreccing a simple repost of a White House statement

Seriously, what are you afraid of?

[ProSense]

37. .

:rofl:

[CakeGrrl]

53. "a simple repost"

At least be honest about the tenor of the original article. It was written to strike an ominous warning tone to the WH on this issue, and the repost was put here to remind people to keep being pissed at the WH until things change.

"What, who ME?"

:eyes:

And speaking of honesty, why does the OP refer to this as "President Obama's" response rather than the WH? He did not personally speak to the issue. The spokesman's name was listed. Yet there you put his name front and center. In the crosshairs, perchance?

[jgraz]

58. Unfortunately, it was such a tepid statement that not many sites had it up this morning

Politico was the first semi-neutral quote I found. There were many other choices that were far more critical of the President.

[YOY]

73. Maybe those people just don't like you! How very rude!

n/t

[jgraz]

74. It is rude to not like me. I'm very likable!

:D

[YOY]

75. It's true!!! it's true!!!

n/t

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

49. But of course that's not good enough

And does not go far enough. Nothing would.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. It is of course, the context. We know he is a dogmatic thinker

who is religiously opposed to equality, this seems to be the central tenant and exclusive public face of his religious practice, which in fact forbids many things he does and more that his wife does. This is a fact. So we know the man, and his wife are allies of such fire breathing hate preachers as Donnie McClurkin, whom they have both praised and employed, a man who calls gay people vampires. He was a surrogate on the campaign trail.
The only reason I am even commenting on this is your snark. Your pointed, targeted and telling snark. Your snark which is not reality based. The reality is that there is context to this terse and conflicted statement that simply screams of irony. To me, this decision was a burn to the anti-equality religionists, and Obama is an anti-equality religionist. So I assume that he is cheesed off for his imaginary deity just as Palin and Rick Warren will be today. That is how he describes his point of view, you see, as being opposed to equality because of his religion, which is the same religion that Dobson has, and Palin.
To get by with snark, you need a righteous leg to stand on. The President lacks such a leg in this arena.

[treestar]

63. He supported overruling prop 8

And has made, I believe, some accommodation for gay federal employees. He gets credit for nothing, and no matter what he did, it would not be good enough anyway.

[jgraz]

64. It's hard to give him credit while he still validates the bigots

Do you have any idea how many times I've had to hear my teabag relatives remind me that Obama is against gay marriage? As long as the president espouses homophobic positions, he's going to be criticized for those homophobic positions -- and rightly so.

[treestar]

108. True but he should get credit for what he did do at the same time

This is clearly not something he feels strongly against, either. Teabag relatives don't praise him for being against marriage equality? They actually show some discrimination on the subject!

[Bluenorthwest]

66. Equal is good enough. Ceasing the religionist rhetoric would

help. Apologizing for his invective spewing campaign surrogates is essential. That should be essential to him as a part of his faith, you know. And as a human being. His guy called me and mine vampires and child killers. And he employed that man as surrogate.
So yeah, none of that is good enough. Stating as a secular politician that you think God wants some minorities to have less rights than others, whom he says are 'Sanctified' is absolutely awful stuff, and if it was done to any other group, the doer would be considered a vicious hate speaker himself. To claim that these things are somehow the fault of those he insults with this affectation of faithspeak is just very indicative of many things, and all who read this will see that.
Today, the 'I'm a Christian so I am against equality' crowd have lost. That means all of them, split all the hairs you wish to split. Split away. The truth is just the truth.
If he was even once the fierce advocate he promised to be, in such detail, even once, he'd get some slack. If he was just a man of his word. Not much to ask of 'I'm a Christian' types, to be true to their word, or at least it should not be.

[Roci]

67. I'm *yawn* so *Yawn*

Greatful *yawn* for *yawn* his insipid-er *yawn* "Inspired leadership" on the *yawn* issue...


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


Roci

[bigwillq]

77. Hello.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[laughingliberal]

72. Fierce! nt

[nightrain]

79. knr. So true that Obama is tepid about GLBT issues, sadly. When I think about

the support he could give and doesn't, I feel very very sad.

[bvar22]

80. Tiptoe ,

Down the middle
Take NO chance,
True mediocrity,
Come tiptoe
Down the middle
With me.

Neither FER it
Nor Agin It
Take no STAND
For our Liberty
Come Tiptoe
Down the Middle
With Me!

[dflprincess]

86. Or my favorite from "1776"

"Cool, Cool Considerate Men" (sung by those reluctant to vote on the resolution for independence)

We are cool
Come ye cool cool considerate set
We'll dance together to the same minuet
To the right, ever to the right
Never to the left, forever to the right
May our creed be never to exceed
Regulated speed, no matter what the need
We sing hosanna, hosanna

Enblazoned on our banner
Is keep cool
What we do we do rationally
We never ever go off half-cocked, not we
Why begin till we know that we can win
And if we cannot win why bother to begin?

Rutledge:

We say this game's not of our choosing
Why should we risk losing?

All:
We are cool
To the right, ever to the right
Never to the left, forever to the right

We have gold, a market that will hold
Tradition that is old, a reluctance to be bold.

Dickinson:
I sing hosanna, hosanna
In a sane and lucid manner
We are cool

All:
Come ye cool cool considerate men
The likes of which may never be seen again
With our land, cash in hand
Self-command, future planned
And we'll hold to our gold
Tradition that is old, reluctant to be bold.
We say this game's not of our choosing
Why should we risk losing?

We cool, cool, cool
Cool, cool, cool
Cool cool men.

[bullwinkle428]

81. I'm just a simple caveman, but I'm happy to K&R this thread, jgraz!

[Yuugal]

82. K&R

[bullwinkle428]

85. Rachel just totally clowned on Axelrod for "twisting himself

into a pretzel" in his efforts to explain Obama's position on this ruling!

[Whisp]

90. his 'personal' opposition to gay marriage.

and whose to know if he really feels like that - can't say much this way or that without half the country making a shit storm out of it.

He will uphold the law.

Just like Carter, who was anti-abortion, said his personal beliefs did not interfere with THE LAW, and it was his duty to uphold it.

[jgraz]

92. So you're saying he's either a homophobe or a coward.

WHY DO YOU HATE OUR PRESIDENT????!?!?!?!

[Whisp]

93. no, you said that.

but I don't know you well enough to tell whether you are kidding or not.

probably not kidding.

[jgraz]

94. No, you said it.

According to you, Obama is either personally against civil rights for gays (homophobia) or he believes in civil rights for gays, but won't publicly support it because he doesn't want "half the country making a shit storm out of it" (cowardice).

Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

[Whisp]

100. delete

[jberryhill]

97. He marrried a woman, so it's pretty obvious

I'm thrilled by the ruling.

I did personally marry someone of the opposite sex, and am unlikely to change as a result of this ruling.

I don't think the appeal process should be about Barack Obama. I think it should be about what is right.