Obama Supports Gay Marriage.

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
Actually, JTalbain, I have a slightly less generous read: There was the distinct likelihood of a plank fight over gay marriage at the convention, and I think Obama wanted to avoid a potentially eye-blackening confrontation with a very lucrative donor base. I think it was a mix of that and sincerity, but considering that I really doubt Obama changed his mind recently, I can't help but think the straw that broke the camel's back was political.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
Actually, JTalbain, I have a slightly less generous read: There was the distinct likelihood of a plank fight over gay marriage at the convention, and I think Obama wanted to avoid a potentially eye-blackening confrontation with a very lucrative donor base. I think it was a mix of that and sincerity, but considering that I really doubt Obama changed his mind recently, I can't help but think the straw that broke the camel's back was political.
I can buy that. He did still seem kind of reluctant when making his announcement after all. Like you and other people have said though, there was little doubt as to where Obama really stood on gay rights. I'm sure if it wasn't a hot topic he would have made his stance known earlier, but most stances are a blend of personal and political motivations.
 

B_Nick8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Posts
11,403
Media
0
Likes
298
Points
208
Location
New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Based on what? He's essentially been GW Bush part 3 from a policy standpoint, which the difference being in how he carries himself.

Listen, I know he's charismatic and plays a great part. It sucked me in for a very long time. But you have to look at he what he DOES, and his record has to be extremely cherry picked to make him look good.



Again, I don't think he's a man of moral convictions. He's not dumb, he picked his advisers.




Yes, I know Obama said he was for a public option. He even said that after he had made his deal to make sure it never happened....then he slowly stopped mentioning it publicly. Politicians say a lot of things, you have to watch what they do.

I only care about the Senate Dems who actually pushed for a public option. And that number is waaaaaaaay less than 60. Anyone can say they're for it they know it's not on the table. The people who try to get it back on are who matter.


Some of Barack's appeal comes from his presentation, I agree. But let's just be honest about one thing: no matter how anyone wants to sweep it under the carpet, the fact that he got elected and was black is huge. And, unfortunately, I think that looms large in his mind psychologically in that, aware of his place in history, he wants to do great things but he wants to do them under the guise as a conciliator, a person who brings people together, a moderate. That he's been the most polarizing president in history despite his efforts must be particularly galling to him.

I don't think he went into the health care debate having already given in on the single payer option but I think he knew that would be the first thing he'd have to let go. And the most painful. But even the Blue Dog Dems were up in arms and his one goal was to get a version of his health care bill, one that the Democrats had been trying for over40 years to realize, into law so that it could be built upon. He did that, and although no one was especially happy with it, it was a good start. That was what mattered. If he loses in November, we lose that and it will be 25 years or more before we get into the gate again.

I, too, have been frustrated with what I saw as his equivocating. His compromising. Nonetheless, he is by far preferable to any alternative and certainly to Mittens. The election in November is crucial to us, to this country. As I said in '08, whoever won, it was going to be hell for them because no one was going to begin to turn around the economy in 4 years. The signs are good now and I truly don't want to switch to the Republican version of recovery. Moreover, with SCOTUS appointments on the horizon as well as other social and economic issues to be decided in the next 4 years, we need a democrat making them.

Please understand, I"m not a zealot. I do love Barack but I don't think he walks on water. I believe he is genuinely committed to his moral principles. I think he's a good and kind man. I think he had to be tough--and compromising--to get where he is. I agree he has his faults, some of which may have come from being a smart, ambitious black man succeeding in today's America. I don't know. I do know I could listen to him talk and be proud to have him as my president for the next four years. And I think as a second term president he'll be more likely to start kicking ass. I sure as hell couldn't say any of that about Mitt Romney.


It still wasn't a wholehearted unabashed approval of it. It honestly struck me as a rare case of someone thinking with their heart rather than their head in politics.
Honestly, the biggest difference between how we view things is that you view inaction as apathy. In politics, you have to pick your battles, because trying and failing can be much worse than doing nothing at all. Whereas I would seem the same situation as you and maybe throw out the criticism that he is being overly cautious (which I feel he is), you instead think it is an indication that he doesn't give a damn about anything but votes. I suppose either way, we won't have to worry about it if he gets reelected will we? Won't be worried about polls as much then.
I'm not going to try to say that Obama is a saint. What I am going to say is that he understands how compromise works, and he understands the importance of it in politics. As such, he can't take firm stances on personal beliefs very often, because he hamstrings himself when he does so. Moral values are usually fairly non-negotiable, so he either sets himself up to be seen as wishy-washy or pandering by doubling back, or butts heads with another group that has similar non-negotiable views. Neither is conducive to compromise.
Not crusading for a cause is NOT the same as not believing in it. Cynicism does not make your opinions reality, and does not allow you access to the inner machinations of politics, or the true motives of politicians.

Great post.
 

monel

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
1,638
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
183
Gender
Male
Black leaders need to come out in force for gay marriage and ask the questiin, 50 years later, would you want to have to tell your grandchildren that you were on the wrong side of the civil rights movement. There has been traditional resistance to gay rights among black communities largely because of the civil lack cburches. With a black president now in support of gay marriage it creates some conflict for the black churches. But they are not likely to support Romney. It puts them in a unique position to influence the debate. Therefore they need to get on board. Many ardent racists who were against desegregation as well as every otber advancement in the struggle for equal rights, decades later realized the error of their ways, professed their ashamedness and acknowledged they were wrong. It is a powerful question particularly for those still uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage today. In 30 years, when gay rights are part of the "natural order" do you want to have to explain to your grandkids why you were on the wrong side.
 

B_Nick8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Posts
11,403
Media
0
Likes
298
Points
208
Location
New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
I agree with you. I've been hearing and reading though, that some in the African-American community, particularly evangelical leaders, resent gays and lesbians comparing our fight to the Civil Rights Movement because they want only blacks to be able to lay claim to that. It's similar to the way some Jews resent other victims of the Holocaust, gays, Gypsys, Catholic priests, etc. when they are speaking of having been systematically targeted by it in an effort to wipe them out; they feel the Holocaust belongs to Jews alone.

I also agree that many people who feel this way come to see that how they felt or what they did was wrong, but often this is after what change was needed has come to be and they haven't participated in it. That's what's unfortunate. Being on the wrong side of history is less a crime than a moral shame.
 

B_Nick8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Posts
11,403
Media
0
Likes
298
Points
208
Location
New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male

monel

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
1,638
Media
0
Likes
48
Points
183
Gender
Male
Agreed. There is great courage in owning and admitting it.

Here's an interesting article on the spiritual hypocrisy of an anti-gay reaction by the black church:
Is the black church guilty of spiritual hypocrisy in same-sex marriage debate? – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Nick, good article. I think the reluctance has much to to do with a jealous guard of the pain of the black experience. Often groups that have experienced unfathomable pain want to own it and the thought of other groups experiencing similar suffering, in their minds, lessens what their community experienced. Some in the black community don't like the gay rights movement to be compared to the civil rights movement. I think this has as much to do with not wanting to share that experience as it does with the influence of the black church. It will change. And though it is not my intention to malign the black community or church, I think the unique circumstances that the country finds itself in at this particular time puts them at the precipice for change. They need to seize this opportu.ity to lead.
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
341
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
You mean to tell me that the Republicans needed yet another talking point to promote anti-Obama anything??? I think not. If the Republican party doesn't wake up and stop pandering to those who seem to vote only on these wedge issues, in another 20 years they're going to find themselves saying things like, "Well, we were the Party that promoted equal rights for gays!" Those under 20 now will be 40 in just a few years -- and I'm sure they'll remember just how ridiculous these arguments were.
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
341
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
One more thought! All those gullible Conservative Christian voters being sucked in by the social wedge issues so that Republican wheelers and dealers can simply further their economic agenda. Some day this is going to bite them in the ass. Name me one Republican politician (or President) that's delivered any legislation of substance concerning a conservative social stance on gay anything! The ultra right wing is getting a little fed up with the Republicans promising the moon while never launching a rocket!
 

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,900
Media
0
Likes
308
Points
208
Gender
Male
I heard someone the other day say that when the SCOTUS said that black and whites could marry they changed the definition of marriage.........and marriage still survives how is that possible?
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
I heard someone the other day say that when the SCOTUS said that black and whites could marry they changed the definition of marriage.........and marriage still survives how is that possible?
They didn't really change it. The reason why there is so much debate is because the true definition of marriage is largely undefined. Based on the wording, a gay civil union should be about the same thing, but in practice it isn't. It's all the little bylaws and local definitions that are at fault. It's left open enough that things like the NC Constitutional Amendment are just setting forth a strict definition of marriage.

On that subject, I actually kind of like that such an amendment is getting this attention on the national level. The states are battles to be fought on the subject, but the big prize will be a SCOTUS decision or an Amendment to the US Constitution. A victory there would make any losses at the state level irrelevant, and things like this will push the issue to the national level in fairly short order.