Tuesday, May 8th, 2012
99

Obama Still Hates Gay Marriage, No Matter What You Want to Think

Some people are confused!

• "Why doesn't Barack Obama just come out in support of gay marriage?" asks the Guardian. Uh, because he doesn't believe in it?

• "'The gay community was fully happy in their belief that he ‘wink, wink’ supported it,' a top Democratic communications strategist said," says Politico. Then they are fools?

• "Obama, who supports most gay rights, has stopped short of backing gay marriage. Without clarification, he's said for the past year and a half that his personal views on the matter are 'evolving,'" says AP.

Okay, all of this is totally weird election-year baloney. Whatever gays have talked themselves into believing that Obama "secretly" supports gay marriage, and is going to make a big reveal the day after he's reelected… well, get ready. Barack Obama is, and always has been, despite what he may have written on some gay group's questionnaire in 1996 or said into a hot mic, opposed to gay marriage because he is a Christian. He can say his ideas are "evolving" all he wants, but, you know, he's been president for a term and they haven't "evolved," even with all that gay money being stuffed down his pants. Let's flashback to 2008: "As a Christian—he is a member of the United Church of Christ—Mr. Obama believes that marriage is a sacred union, a blessing from God, and one that is intended for a man and a woman exclusively, according to these supporters and Obama campaign advisers…. 'I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.'" There. Could he be more direct? Even George Pataki, who is about as smart as the side of a barn, understands this! Could everyone stop being weird?

99 Comments / Post A Comment

riggssm (#760)

Thank you, Choire. I'd never vote for Mr. Romney, but I'm having serious reservations about casting (another) vote for Mr. Obama. It's a tough moral call—-vote for the guy who is the lesser of meh or sit it out like a brat?

:(

jolie (#16)

@riggssm Totally tough and made tougher by the fact that Romney's track record on this issue (i.e. civil unions in MA) is maybe better than Obama's? Which is BIZARRE. And also not enough of a reason to vote him because he's a flip flopping jerk and you can't believe a thing he says/runs on, BUT STILL. So bizarre.

boyofdestiny (#1,243)

@jolie What's Romney's track record of civil unions in Massachusetts?

Astigmatism (#1,950)

@riggssm No, please don't. This bothers me no end: it's not between a lesser of two evils or the lesser of meh, it's between meh and evil. No matter what Romney advocated in 1994 when he was running against Ted Kennedy for Senate (at which time, remember, he also ran to the left of Kennedy on abortion rights), in recent years he's given money to the National Organization for Marriage, signed pledges to seek a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and defend DOMA, and allowed his only openly gay staffer to be chased out of his campaign by conservatives. Obama may not personally support gay marriage, but he ended Don't Ask Don't Tell, has called for DOMA to be repealed (and refused to defend it in court), and has publicly opposed state constitutional amendments against gay marriage. The line that there's no difference between them is a lie being pushed by conservatives to distract from how hostile the Republican Party really is to gay rights. A half-step forward versus ten steps back doesn't seem like a hard choice to me.

jolie (#16)

@boyofdestiny He signed civil unions into law as governor. Also: universal healthcare. It's TERRIFYING when you think of it. Still though, not ever going to vote for him.

jfruh (#713)

@jolie Did he really? Did Massachusetts ever have civil unions? I thought he was governor when the Mass. Supreme Court said that banning gay marriage was contrary to the Mass. constitution, and Romney grumbled about it but made no concentrated effort to stop it.

riggssm (#760)

@Astigmatism Please see below: I'm not a one-issue voter (which I didn't realize I was implying when I responded to Choire's post).

There are many other factors for me, this just may be the straw that breaks the gay camel's back though.

mgw (#89)

@jfruh Pretty sure Massachusetts never had civil unions. Romney did back a constitutional amendment to create them (and ban same-sex marriage), but that was a response to the SJC recognizing full marriage equality. It would have revoked rights for gay couples, not grant new ones.

La Cieca (#1,110)

@riggssm This is why Republicans have all the nice things.

@mgw Yeah, pretty sure of that. We went straight from nothing to full marriage. Also of course gay marriage is one important issue, but Obama is still on the right side when it comes to other issues that usually go along with gay rights. Like reproductive rights for women. There may be several new Supreme Court appointments during the next presidential term (not to mention, lots of lower-level federal judges). Do you want Obama to appoint those judges, or do you want several more in the vein of Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito? Because that's what we're likely to get if Romney is elected.

DoctorDisaster (#1,970)

@riggssm I feel weird even considering it a presidential issue. It's not; it's a legislative one. Other than exercising the veto to protect oppression (which Obama wouldn't do and which is obviously a dealbreaker) it really doesn't even factor in.

@jfruh Oh, and as for marriage rights, yeah, Romney was governor when it passed, and spent the rest of his term in office trying get the legislature to overturn it (by that point, he had presidential ambitions, and had started his sharp swing back to the right wing). He actively pushed to enforce a law on the books that would not allow out-of-state gay couples to marry in Mass. if it wasn't legal in their own states (so, effectively everyone). That law, incidentally, was originally passed to prevent out-of-state interracial couples from marrying before Loving v. VA.

The best thing about Romney's attempt to overturn gay marriage here was during the next state elections, when he aggressively backed several anti-gay-marriage candidates, and the pro-gay-marriage side actually gained seats in the legislature.

Astigmatism (#1,950)

@major disaster: This is probably the biggest point of all, and as a lawyer it drives me up the f*cking wall that people don't pay more attention to it. Whatever purity standard you feel you're entitled to hold Obama to will seem a hell of a lot less important when Ruth Bader Ginsburg decides to retire at 82 and President Romney nominates a 45-year-old arch-conservative to take her place, provide a fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, and decide that the Constitution forbids minimum wage or workplace safety laws.

@riggssm You don't have only two options. There is a third thing you can do rather than vote for someone you don't like or sit out the election.

turd_sandwich (#5,660)

@Astigmatism thanks for your perspective. it's these things that help me get past the meh of continued incursions on civil liberties, the Yemeni journalist that Obama seems to have had a direct hand in getting and keeping locked up, the drone wars, etc., etc. i'm going to cry into my coffee now.

barnhouse (#1,326)

I do not understand this conversation. The choice before us is comparable to either having (1) your leg broken or (2) your throat cut. There is no (3). And it is not going to be easy even to get the lesser of these two evils.

If you care about gay marriage then do all you can to elect a liberal Congress. They make the laws!

EB (#233,348)

@Astigmatism I like the sounds of president Romney, although really not that much better, he will probably run the country into the ground a heack of a lot slower than Obama.

DoctorDisaster (#1,970)

EB@facebook (#233,348)

Fixed.

lawyergay (#220)

Amen, brother.

Moff (#28)

I am not optimistic about Barack Obama supporting gay marriage, but I think it has way more to do with his being a politician. Being a Christian — being a member of the UCC, no less — is pretty demonstrably compatible with supporting same-sex marriage.

Lockheed Ventura (#5,536)

@Moff @Moff Exactly, this is about politics. I never felt that Obama's beliefs are driven by his Christianity. Biden is Christian who I sense is more religious than Obama, and yet he came out in support of gay marriage. Why? Biden is no longer a politician (VP is basically a ceremonial role), he will never run for political office again so he can speak his mind.

Chris_H (#11,455)

@Moff yes. just because the church has the word "Christ" in it, doesn't mean it isn't the most liberal Christian church, unless you're counting the Unitarians. They're the ones flying the giant rainbow flags Sunday morning, and that's pretty sweet.

Niko Bellic (#1,312)

@Moff Exactly. As soon as more than half of the electorate in battleground states is found to be in support of gay marriage, Obama will complete his "evolution" on the issue.

@Moff THANK YOU FOR THIS. As a UCC member I don't know what Obama is smokin'. Every UCC church I have ever attended happily marries gay people. Obama is straight up lying if he's saying that the denomination is against gay marriage. He may have personal opinions, but he can't pin it on his denomination.

Moff (#28)

@M. Flourish Klink: My UCC pastor has told me there are congregations who aren't Open and Affirming, but yeah, they're not the public face of the denomination.

SeanP (#4,058)

@Moff Yeah, this is the thing. The UCC is a super gay-friendly congregation. The idea that Obama can't support gay marriage because he's "a Christian" is kind of a silly oversimplification.

@Moff Oh, for sure, there are such congregations—indeed, when I started attending my last church they had only recently become Open and Affirming—but exactly: it's not the denomination's policy, which makes it extra galling that he says he can't support gay marriage because he's a "Christian." Well, what does that make me, Barry? You know, me… the person who is a member of the same denomination as you and will happily recite the tenets of our faith at any time for your perusal? Anyway.

jolie (#16)

I won't be able to sleep until I know what Chris Hughes thinks of all this.

DoctorDisaster (#1,970)

@jolie Does this mean I'm not the only one who categorically finds every word that comes out of that guy's mouth annoying?

Or… were you being earnest? Sorry if you were being earnest.

lawyergay (#220)

@DoctorDisaster That weird celebrity profile in the NYT definitely doesn't help.

@DoctorDisaster You are certainly not the only one who thinks that.

mmmark (#4,458)

"The message of love and compassion, justice and peace are at the very core of the life and ministry of Jesus. Open and Affirming (ONA) ministries and resources are rooted in that Gospel message."

jack burton (#4,433)

Didn't FDR totally fuck over Black people in order to get the votes from the racist southern congressmen for the New Deal in the 30's? I wonder how many of them (Blacks, not racist southerners) sat out the vote in a pissy huff after that? Can't be politics in play here, nope. It must be that Obama just hates the gays (even though he has done more than any past president combined for them). I am sure President Rmoney will make everything immediately better for gay people, he has shown such incredible backbone so far, after all.

jfruh (#713)

@jack burton I am reasonably sure that most southern blacks in the '30s would never in a million years vote for a Democrat, seeing that the Democratic party (particularly in the south) was the party of institutional white supremacy.

bluebears (#5,902)

@jfruh Not necessarily true. "The election of Roosevelt in 1932 marked the beginning of a change. He got 71 percent of the black vote for president in 1936 and did nearly that well in the next two elections, according to historical figures kept by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies." http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/

jfruh (#713)

@bluebears How many of those votes came from the South, though? I mean, most blacks in the south couldn't vote at all, what with various Jim Crow laws. Northern blacks did vote Democratic, at least in part because they lived in big cities dominated by Democratic machines. The first few post-Reconstruction black Congressmen were Democrats elected from urban areas.

jack burton (#4,433)

@jfruh From 1930 to 1960 Blacks never voted below 60 percent for democrats. After 1964 it never fell below 80 percent. While it is true that most Blacks did vote republican before FDR, in 1936 Blacks became an important partner in New Deal legislation even while getting very little in return. So, no voting for their racist congressmen, but (when they were allowed to vote) overwhelming (71%) support for FDR at that time. Edit: I see bluebears already got there.

jack burton (#4,433)

@jfruh Actually, the first Black state legislator came from that beacon of freedom, Mississippi, during Reconstruction.

jfruh (#713)

@jack burton yeah, did you see "post-Reconstruction", right there in my post? That first black congressman was a Republican, just like all the Reconstruction black congressmen and senators from the South.

Honestly, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrat, but I don't understand why everyone is so insistent on pretending that blacks never had any problems with the Democratic party in the U.S. The Democratic party for much of the late 19th and early 20th century was a broad and uneasy coalition between southern white supremacists, poor midwestern farmers, and urban northern immigrants and Catholics. And by "uneasy" I mean VERY uneasy — for example see the 1924 Democratic National Convention, aka the "Klanbake," where the KKK openly rallied outside the convention hall and manged to keep Catholic Al Smith from getting the nomination. Yes, this started to shift around the time of FDR, but the key word is "started."

Like I said above, I am genuinely curious how those southern blacks who were able to vote voted in the FDR era. Northern blacks were pretty well integrated into the urban Democratic machines so it's not surprising that they voted Democrat (but as you note not in the near-monolithic numbers in which they vote Dem today). Obviously once Southern blacks could vote they did for Democrats in great numbers because LBJ had been the institutional architect of the Civil Rights legislation, and the southern white supremacist Democrats left the party.

jack burton (#4,433)

@jfruh Sorry, I misread your comment on the post reconstruction part. I also know you are a liberal. Again though, my point is when the field was level, Blacks usually went democratic during the time of FDR in terms of presidential voting. It also took 30 more years before any meaningful civil rights legislation passed, which then caused most of the Red state, Blue state issues in this country. I also believe I am aware of when the party shifts started to occur as a result of the Solid South and civil rights. I am Black and I have HUGE problems with Obama and the party. But what are we to do? Dems aren't trying to make it harder for me and mine to vote. They are not trying to deport my Latina immigrant wife. They are also not introducing bills in state legislatures banning civil unions for gay people, either. So we either vote what we know is just and fight like hell to change the status quo, or we sit out like sulking toddlers and let the country go to hell. I know what I want.

jfruh (#713)

@jack burton No, I'm definitely not saying that … you shouldn't vote for Obama? Not saying that at all! I'm voting for Obama! I'm just someone who likes history and is curmudgeonly about it.

jack burton (#4,433)

@jfruh I know you are not saying that! We are on the same page, I think. I was saying us as liberal Democrats who want the best for all citizens in this country. I just am tired of the Progressive poutrage. I too like history and, oh boy, what a complicated time that was back then, huh? See, I think Obama has to be like Jackie Robinson when all of those racist teammates, opposing players, and fans just hated him. He couldn't be all like, "It is on MOTHERFUCKERS!" He had to take it. Otherwise he would have been the first and last Black baseball player for…ever? That is the way it is for Obama just as it is for all Black people. That is great (for history) in a lot of ways as he is so cool under pressure but it is so, so unfair that a bar that one must leap over is considered just the way it is.

I never knew about the "Klanbake". Thanks for that. I want one.

And even if he were a closeted non-bigot why would anyone think he would flip this flop BEFORE the election?

Mr. B (#10,093)

Hang on. Does anyone actually believe (supporters or detractors) that the President is religious?

Also, one-issue voters, whatever the issue, are bad citizens.

@Mr. B In regard to 'one-issue voters', I couldn't agree with you more.

riggssm (#760)

@Mr. B He's a Muslin, isn't he …

But seriously, I'm not a one-issue voter. It's the accumulation of "meh" I have about his administration's domestic policies: E. Warren and financial reform, the oil pipeline, campaign finance reform, the Gulf oil spill, the Indefinite Detention law, national infastructure (power, water, public transit, etc.), the health care act, electronic eavesdropping, etc., etc.

Moff (#28)

@riggssm: It's a pretty conservative administration. Probably because we live in a deeply conservative country. But like Astigmatism says, "meh" is way better than "evil." (I'm always kinda amazed by people who hope for more than "meh" out of any politician, anyway. It reveals a faith possibly less grounded in reality than any religious belief.)

Astigmatism (#1,950)

@riggssm: So your solution is to vote for a guy (and don't try to pretend that sitting out because the President is insufficiently strongly liberal for you is anything other than an effective vote for Romney) who wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and disband the CFPB, doesn't believe in climate change, wants to massively deregulate most industries and end funding for public transit, and repeal the health care act?

In other words, "This Tylenol is taking too long to make me feel better. Maybe I should shoot myself in the face."

Moff (#28)

@riggssm: Do it! Sit it out! Make your statement! There's a reason the people who watch Fox News keep out-politicking the people who read Slate.

@Astigmatism: Some people are confused!

riggssm (#760)

@Astigmatism I never said the president is "insufficiently strongly liberal," I said I disagree with some of his domestic policies. Don't read too much into my examples!

@Moff So, I should flush my moral compass down the toilet and tolerate mediocrity? That's tough for me.

(Also, by the way, just curious, when are the Democrats going to borrow FDR's balls and/or learn how to effectively message?)

Mr. B (#10,093)

I try not to get drawn in to arguments like this, because I find myself wanting to deliver a mansplaining lecture on the limits of executive power (no magic wand, etc.). But regarding the "meh" factor, I honestly attribute this to the right-wing propaganda machine's success at taking control of the conversation. The Affordable Care Act is the most extraordinary piece of domestic legislation in a half-century, without question. So what if it could have been better! A lot of things could be better! They could also be worse! It was done in one of the most divided, polarized congresses in generations, as opposed to the solidly Democratic House and Senate enjoyed by LBJ. The President deserves way more credit than he's getting just for the fact that it passed in any form at all, and even if the Supreme Court strikes down all or part of it next month. I could go on to list all the other things you already know about, but my point is that the Obama Administration is anything but meh: he gets things done. Do you want someone who refuses to compromise? Then what you want is an ideologue, not a president.

DoctorDisaster (#1,970)

@Mr. B I agree with all of this except it all being the fault of right-wing propaganda. Unbelievably shitty messaging and discipline and whatnot within the Democratic is equally to blame.

Moff (#28)

@riggssm: If your moral compass wants you to effectively endorse long-term awfulness for the sake of pointless idealism, yeah, I would flush it, because it sucks. (It sounds great for boosting your ego, however — and of course, genuinely moral action has always been rooted in the boosting of one's own ego.)

Sorry you have to tolerate mediocrity! As others have pointed out, mediocrity is way less shitty than a solid right-wing majority on the Supreme Court, among other things. If you can see a way for us to achieve Excellence In A President, by all means, fill us in. I suspect it will be easier to get there from where mediocre Obama leaves us, though, than from where Romney does.

Mr. B (#10,093)

@DoctorDisaster If the big knock against the Democrats is that our propaganda is less effective than their propaganda, I'll take it.

jack burton (#4,433)

@riggssm Probably when he gets overwhelming democratic majorities in both houses. You know, like FDR having over 70% of congress. But it is just that Obummmer is an effete DINO.

Bittersweet (#765)

@jack burton: Oh good, now the Democrats are getting into the exclusionary fun with DINOs? Color me thrilled to be an anti-party, fence-sitting moderate.

jack burton (#4,433)

@Bittersweet What? Am I an idiot because you are being sarcastic? Or is it just you that doesn't get sarcasm?

Bittersweet (#765)

@jack burton: Sorry, did you just make up the DINO thing? I just assumed it was real. Never mind me, carry on…

iantenna (#5,160)

i'm just glad i live in california so i don't have to worry about these things. i can cast my ridiculous idealist vote for whoever the peace and freedom party candidate is this year (peltier? nader? i have no idea!), and not have any effect on the outcome one way or the other.

"christian' and 'fundamentalist christian' are NOT the same. (Think-Episcopalian-you know-the one with the openly gay Bishop???) Many DO support gay-marriage, along with MANY other 'Christians' that I know personally. I don't feel it's right for YOU to tell US what the TRUTH is regarding Obama's beliefs, unless YOU are relating a personal conversation you had with the man, and are telling US what he told YOU about his absolute beliefs. Please remember, although NO politician is perfect (hmm…think…HUMAN) I belief Mr. Romney would do much to tear down the LGBT community, far more than O'Bama. In case this matters, I am neither of the LGBT community, but a fervent supporter, nor am I a 'christian'.

roboloki (#1,724)

@Kimberlyn Gelhar@facebook obama asked me to tell you to shut the fuck up.

werewolfbarmitzvah (#16,402)

Ehhhh, I always figured that Obama only pretends to be against gay marriage in an effort to pander to conservatives, AND that he pretends to be religious in an effort to pander to conservatives as well. The guy is way too smart to either be against gay marriage or to believe in Biblical fairy tales, but being honest about those subjects would never get anyone elected. But IF this is the case (obviously I don't know Obama personally, so I could be talking outta my ass), it still drives me up the wall that Obama could be so lacking in integrity that there could be such a world of difference between his public stances and his private stances. I'm actually not sure which would be more infuriating scenario, Obama publicly pretending to be more conservative than he is, or Obama ACTUALLY being that conservative. I guess maybe the pretending would be the more infuriating thing?

jfruh (#713)

The UCC, the church the Obamas went to for years, is pro-gay-marriage. So now we know the REAL reason he left Trinity. The Jeremiah Wright thing was just a smokescreen! Obviously he still loves Wright and his America-hating ways.

@jfruh please relay this personal conversation you had with Mr Prez that has you KNOWING the true way he believes.

jfruh (#713)

@Kimberlyn Gelhar@facebook Um … I think I was making a fairly obvious joke? I.e., Choire says Obama is against gay marriage because he's a Christian, even though the Christian church he belonged to for years was pro-gay-marriage? And then he left it because of the Jeremiah Wright in '08? Remember all that?

DoctorDisaster (#1,970)

@jfruh faaaaaaaceboooooooooooook

melis (#1,854)

@jfruh Please – please – do not talk to the Facebook commenters. I know that to you it's a game, like slumming in the Garbage Arcade ships below Hell's Gate. But you simply can't imagine – you have no idea – how pernicious and persistent is their delusion that they are in fact human beings and not robots at all.

It's only a moment of jest for you, something to be forgotten as soon as you enter the Opium Maze, but we here at the Institute spend days cleaning up after your mess. It's heartbreaking. There are times when I wonder why I continue with my work, days when the government's Suicide Booths begin to look more and more like a preferable option to carrying on.

Who am I really helping? Perhaps, in the end, Jonas was right to do what he did. Perhaps he was braver than us all.

melis (#1,854)

*sound of a single tear*

melis (#1,854)

*sound of a single gunshot*

melis (#1,854)

CLEANUP ON ROBOT ROW

JUST ANOTHER DAY AT THE INSTITUTE

CLEANUP ON ROBOT ROW

NOTHING TO SEE HERE

jfruh (#713)

@melis hahahaha

Van Buren Boy (#1,233)

Ummm, do you realize that Joe Biden is Catholic (not exactly a gay-loving group) and two days ago voiced support for gay marriage? There is a difference between the government recognizing same-sex marriage and having churches recognize it.

Also, anyone who doesn't vote for Obama purely because he isn't voicing support for gay marriage isn't exactly thinking things through.

DoctorDisaster (#1,970)

I don't think Choire is saying "vote on this one issue!" He's saying "stop having this stupid argument!"

So this is all just Obama's elaborate way of convincing everyone that he isn't a Muslim?

lawyergay (#220)

As far as this administration goes, there is never going to be a right time for advancing LGBT civil rights. They wanted to do DADT repeal in 2011, which means it wouldn't have happened. That's why it's important to keep the pressure on this White House, despite how "unpragmatic" that may seem to some. We have to insist on our rights, or nothing will change.

laurel (#4,035)

@lawyergay How 'bout a big push right after Obama is re-elected? Obama will never run for elected office again, nor will Biden, so they can advocate for gay marriage without eliminating their political futures. Aren't all these recent statements by Biden and the cabinet–Duncan and Donovan on gay marriage, Clinton on gay rights–table setting for exactly this?

hman (#53)

Is the boycott of JCPenney because of Ellen DeGeneres' gay marriage over yet?
I need a Hunt Club polo.

La Cieca (#1,110)

The reason Pataki, of all political hacks, is hammering at this issue is that the right is trying to provoke Obama to make a statement, any statement on the subject of "gay marriage." Then Fox News and all the rest will hammer at a distorted version of that statement, no matter how innocuous the original, from now until election day. In other words, realistically, anything Obama says that has the words "gay marriage" in it is a) going to lose him votes, which is is probably not going to lose him the election, but is going to be a distraction, and b) turn off enough voters in states and districts where there are very tight gubernatorial and Congressional elections also on the ballot that Democrats would almost certainly lose some key races.

And for what? Essentially a feel-good gesture that gays regard as an entitlement. The President doesn't have direct power to enact marriage equality. Rather, the progression of marriage equality is going to happen in the states and very likely in the Supreme Court — if the right doesn't stampede into power in state legislatures or get to name the next couple of justices.

Obama has allowed himself precisely the wiggle room necessary by emphasizing that his "opposition" is defined by personal religious belief, which is to say a quality that both in the letter and the spirit of the Constitution is not supposed to bear on the law.

Yes, it would be a bold, glorious and pathetically quixotic act for Obama suddenly to announce his "support" of gay marriage just before an election, just the sort of thing to appeal to liberals, who far prefer pointless symbolic feel-good gestures to any sort of actual political change.

Say what you will about Karl Rove: at least he doesn't spend all day sulking because the unicorns won't come out to play.

Moff (#28)

@La Cieca: THIS.

lawyergay (#220)

@La Cieca Yes. Marriage is a creature of state law. I would accept Obama's continuing "evolution" on marriage in exchange for the ENDA executive order.

boysplz (#9,812)

@lawyergay Yes! ENDA is so much more important to me than gay marriage, and I think it's much less likely to pass because no one really talks about it at the national level.

turd_sandwich (#5,660)

@lawyergay do you mean the federal contractor ENDA executive order? would be a good start! that general private sector bill is never passing with a split congress, though, and maybe never with the transgender language in it. as an indicator of the public's temperature on this, i can understand some political discomfort from the WH, not that this makes it any more palatable…ugh. #clusterfuck

lawyergay (#220)

@turd_sandwich Yes, because that's something that literally takes a stroke of Obama's pen to put into effect. The DOJ and Labor departments apparently have already done the administrative work that the executive order would require. I've said this over at AmericaBlog Gay, but it's pretty clear–from this White House's actions–that they view LGBT citizens as a liability except when we want to fight their wars or have our checkbooks with us. All that means is that it's our job to force them to care about our causes, which is what's happening with this backlash.

Niko Bellic (#1,312)

@La Cieca Thank you.

@La Cieca aaaaand OH LOOK WHAT HE JUST DID. Sigh. You're right, and he did it anyway, and let's all hope we (The People) are grown-up enough to be, well, grown-up about it when it comes to casting our votes. (Which desperate wish is probably as quixotic as Obama coming out front and center in the first place. Double sigh, but triple bravo.)

hman (#53)

Well, I'm a gay that is more than excited to cast my vote for Obama. Just maybe I will find a boyfriend worth gay-marrying in the next four years (and I don't feel like I need his blessing to do so.)

Natzzzzzz (#7,318)

Sorry Choire, but i strongly disagree with you on this. I believe Obama is for gay marriage, and if he gets re-elected he will come out in support of it. Maybe not necessarily in his inaugural address, but he will. Besides, as others have noted above, the UCC is pro gay marriage, which is something perhaps you should have researched before generalizing a bunch of people based on their faith?

turd_sandwich (#5,660)

@Natzzzzzz however, in his second inaugural address, he will come out as a kenyan nazi national socialist pacifist warmonger.

seriously, though, it's sad to say the system works this way, but i do think the dude is going to change a LOT in 24 hours, if he wins. likely, in very positive, from my perspective, ways.

Well he's more "for gay marriage" than he is "for substantial market regulation" or "for the environment" or "for the preservation and defense of human rights". So I don't know. On the list of things that he's "for" that falls on the significantly left spectrum, this one might actually be the closest thing to a win you get with Obama.

Moff (#28)

@Jeremy Mesiano-Crookston: YOU ARE A TERRIBLE AMERICAN.

@Moff That explains my CANADIAN PASSPORT! MWAAAHAHA. oh sorry was that too loud? Mwa ha ha ha. Okay? No, no problem. My pleasure.

(politeness stereotype joke).

Moff (#28)

@Jeremy Mesiano-Crookston: WAS IT REALLY THAT POLITE TO EXPLAIN MY JOKE, THOUGH? OHMIGOD.

DoctorDisaster (#1,970)

Jeremy, you fool! The moment enough of the Awl Commentariat understands your joke, we descend on you like a pack of ravenous hyenas and devour you for being insufficiently arch. GOODBYE MOFF IT WAS NICE KNOWING YOU I AM SURE YOU WILL BE DELICIOUS

@DoctorDisaster Uh… Um. Insufficiently arch and impenetrable, eh? That's what Nixon said to a banana in 1975!

*Phew.

Mitt H (#233,251)

This seems like a good place to say that if you are in North Carolina, you should go vote against Amendment 1 today.

Wow… you dipshits must feel like real morons now.

Post a Comment