Comments on: Another Narrative Falls Apart

By: Johnny Kayoss

Johnny Kayoss — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 17:15:00 +0000

1st You assume he support marriage equality, which contradicts every statement he has made on the issue
2nd Considering what HAS been passed under his watch, (Patriot Act extentions, NDAA, Hr 347, extentions of the Bush tax cuts, Ben Bernake in charge of the Fed, caps on compensation from BP, etc slowing “progress” (if that’s what you chose to call it) would have only been a good thing.

What he could have done, right from the start, is to push that the government get out of “Marriage” entirely, create a new category of “Household Corporations”, and transferred all existing Marriage Liscence to Household Corporation charters.
This would have won the argument by taking all “reasoning” behind the opposing argument out of the picture.

But he chose not to. Just like he chose to write the executive order to close Guantanamo specifically to give Congress the opportunity to overrule it (which he by no means had to do).

Obama has seen that the “gay community” responds to being marketed to. Never let yourself be fooled that by being recognized as demographic is in any way being recognized as an equal.

By: Johnny Kayoss

Johnny Kayoss — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 17:04:00 +0000

I emailed the Obama campaign before he was elected asking how he can honestly promote “separate but equal” as a valid path to equal rights (As he had repeatedly stated at that point that he did not support same sex marriage but did support civil unions. I never got a response.
DADT was repealed at a time that there was a problem with enlistment numbers, especially of Arabic translators, due to the purges of homosexuals that recently had happened (A huge percentage of the translators turned out to be gay)
Obama used taxpayer funds to defend DOMA until multiple judges had found marriage restrictions to be in violation of the Equal Protection clause.
In the meantime, he lied us into a war for regime change, attempting to install the remnants of a old monarchy to replace a participatory democracy. He extended the patriot act 2x, expanding its scope in the process, he signed NDAA and HR 347.
No I am not a frustrated GOP operative, I am someone that looks beyond brand identification to the actual records of politicians, and I hold them to the same standard regardless of label, and I cannot think of another president that has held a gay man in prison without charging him with a crime as long as Obama has. A gay man that rightfully should be declared a national hero.
A letter from an underling recommending against a law that is assuredly going to waste taxpayer money in court time and will obviously be overturned by the courts as clearly unconstitutional hardly makes up for his “separate but equal” policies that he has been consistently pushing since before his election. It definitely does not override hi obvious warmongering tendencies or his cozy relationships with the bankers that destroyed the economy, much less his abdication of responsibility to prosecute the previous administration for its crimes, nor his abdication of his campaign promises to advocate at least for a public option for health care.
Jill Stein, on the other hand, has always been pro-gay marriage, would prosecute both Bush and Obama for their war crimes, and would aggressively prosecute the financial criminals that Obama is depending on for his campaign funding. That is someone that is actually on my side.
When Bradley Manning is free and Bush is in Prison, When Guantanamo is closed and Gaza open, when prosecutions of peace activists are ended and prosecution of Warren Anderson begins, and when I can catch a flight to Cuba without having to be irradiated or molested by TSA, then maybe Obama will be worth supporting. Until then, I’d prefer someone that has not proven themselves repeatedly to be a liar, a warmonger, and a political prostitute.

By: Hsquared

Hsquared — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 13:40:00 +0000

There’s a certain contingent of the left that is so obsessed with getting the President to say what the want him to say, that they can’t even acknowledge actually getting things done/progress towards a goal. You see this regarding LGBT issues, the economy, healthcare reform, etc. The want the President to be an activist; the job of an activist is distinctly different from governing. Is there anyone who can credibly argue that there’d be more actual (as opposed to symbolic) progress in the direction of LGBT goals if the President gave a full endorsement of same sex marriage? It’s more likely to galvanize the opposition and slowed progress.

By: nicole

nicole — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 02:11:00 +0000

In reply to MarshallLucky. Doing so at this point in time is too risky. Personally, I believe he will endorse marriage equality in his second term.

By: nicole

nicole — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 02:05:00 +0000

In reply to bintalshamsa.

Come on now. eljefejeff said nothing that wasn’t supportive of marriage equality.

You are out of line.

Adding……and I’m inclined to think that you are a right wing op. You should probably get a little more familiar with your program.

By: eljefejeff

eljefejeff — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 01:52:00 +0000

In reply to bintalshamsa.

Can I get with what? You’re telling me I want to be allowed to discriminate?

Marriage equality is about any man or woman having the choice to marry a man or woman. Is there a third option of which I’m unaware? Please educate me. Seriously. And don’t come on here making accusations without even telling me who you are and how you’re being oppressed.

By: eljefejeff

eljefejeff — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 01:50:00 +0000

In reply to MarshallLucky. Agreed, it's political. I assume he'd be happy to support marriage equality but never wants the right to accuse him of being far left.

By: MarshallLucky

MarshallLucky — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 01:22:00 +0000

There’s a big difference between supporting existing initiatives and maneuvering behind the scenes in individual cases versus stating officially and unabashedly that the party and the candidate support gay marriage, full stop. I don’t think anyone is contesting that the president hates the gay community or has done nothing to advance the issue. The questions here are if the Democratic party is ready to get off its ass and just say it’s for gay marriage with no caveats, and if doing so is too risky for this President in this election.

What do you think? Is it too risky, or have we come far enough in the last four years for it to be beneficial? Is Obama justified in not embracing this idea?

By: KXA

KXA — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 01:22:00 +0000

In reply to bintalshamsa. Please help me to understand your situation. What are the other barriers or communities that face marriage discrimination?

By: MarshallLucky

MarshallLucky — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 01:12:00 +0000

In reply to bintalshamsa.

It’s a process. Queer theory is the wave of the future, but this country is still digesting the idea that homosexuality is a valid life choice. Most people who are for same-sex marriage would probably support marriage rights for every part of the LGBTQIA spectrum, but that’s not a given even among leftists unfortunately. We’ve got growing to do.

The danger which you touch on here is that when nation-wide gay marriage is achieved or close to achieved (and it will happen), the activists will say “done and done” and think the matter is settled. It’s going to take a lot of awareness and agitation to avoid that trap and push the envelope to where it belongs. I think it will happen in my lifetime, but for now we’re slaves to the aggregate, and the aggregate is behind on this one.

Of course, I don’t think that’s anything like the calculus Obama is making, which has more to do with the political riskiness of unabashedly supporting gay marriage than any deeper probing of the perils of marriage definitions.