Is Obama Against Gay Rights? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

genuinegirly · 10-13-2010, 03:38 AM

Obama seems to be sending mixed signals.

I've included snippets of an article below, for a little background. Link to full article: Obama administration appeals gay marriage ruling | Reuters

Quote:

The Obama administration filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in support of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, that barred gay marriages, even though Obama had previously opposed the law.

Although Obama opposes the law, a Justice Department spokeswoman said that the administration was defending the statute because it was obligated to defend federal laws when challenged in court...

The rulings being appealed by the government were made in July by U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro in Boston who found the law violated the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment, which protects states' rights, and the clause granting equal protection under the law.

Under his rulings, same-sex couples would be entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections that are afforded to heterosexual married couples.

One of the challenges was brought by the state of Massachusetts and the other by several couples, including an employee of the U.S. Postal Service, Nancy Gill, who could not obtain coverage for her wife, Marcelle Letourneau, on her family health and vision plans...

Here he had an opportunity to make a real change, but didn't for the sake of "tradition" - he didn't want to speak up against an established federal law. Just because it's not common for presidents to do this, doesn't mean that he needs to follow along with the majority - does it?

Perhaps some of you understand the situation better than I do - I hope you'll take a moment to explain why he made this decision.

filtherton · 10-13-2010, 04:40 AM

Obama has always been mostly talk when it comes to glbt rights. He doesn't even think gay marriage is okay.

Cimarron29414 · 10-13-2010, 05:43 AM

When I learned I was stuck with Obama for 4 years, I did take consolation in the fact that he would right the wrongs of discrimination against gays. So, now I just see his tenure as a complete disappoint rather than mostly a disappointment. I'm also not terribly surprised that a politician lied.

roachboy · 10-13-2010, 05:48 AM

obama is a centrist.
this is not surprising.
it might be if you actually believed that lunatic claim from conservativeland that he is some kind of "leftist."
but he isn't. never was.

i'm pleased that enforcement of dadt was struck down yesterday, but it woulda been a lot better had it been repealed.

i'm disappointed in a lot of ways in the obama administration---except for one thing. they aren't republicans. a republican administration would be an unmitigated disaster.

Baraka_Guru · 10-13-2010, 06:19 AM

If Obama were a leftist, he would have made a point of bringing America into the 21st century as far as gay rights are concerned in the developed world.

Even with same-sex marriage aside (as only a handful of countries currently permit this), and with the exception of the Matthew Shepard Act, Obama has done relatively little to advance the rights of the LGBT community.

The federal government should be stepping in to widen rights that are permitted in some states, including the recognition of same-sex marriages despite the ceremony itself being banned locally, permitting same-sex couples to adopt, in addition to allowing gays to openly serve in the military.

Considering it was only this decade that the Supreme Court essentially legalized sex amongst the LGBT community, the U.S. has a lot of catching up to do. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't seem up to the task. I understand that there are many other issues that are pressing, mainly economic, but I haven't even seen Obama hinting at the desire to tackle these issues adequately.

With an issue such as same-sex marriage, I think he's just playing politics.

Centrist indeed.

roachboy · 10-13-2010, 10:07 AM

i think dan savage pretty well sums this up for me:

Quote:

Dan Savage To White House: Fuck You

"Fuck you, you pack of co-opting cowards. Seriously. You can do a more than offer hope. You have the power to make it better. Right now. Suspend enforcement of DADT. Don't appeal the decision by a federal judge that declared DADT unconstitutional. Stop defending DOMA in court. Keep your promises. Make it better. And if you're not going to keep your promises or do what you can to make it better, White House, then you could at least have the simple human decency to shut the fuck up.

"State-sanctioned discrimination against LGBT people legitimizes the kind of anti-gay attitudes and beliefs that lead directly to anti-gay bullying at the ballot box and anti-gay bullying in schools. You can do more. Enough with the speeches. Enough with the pretty words—particularly lifted ones. Fuck you." - Dan Savage, responding to the White House's posting of an "It Gets Better" message from Brian Bond, Deputy Director of the Office of Public Engagement.

Joe. My. God.: Dan Savage To White House: Fuck You

Baraka_Guru · 10-13-2010, 10:23 AM

So much for the land of liberty.

Quote:

Stephen Colbert comments on illegal immigration and America's double threat from Mexico and Canada.

Colbert states that since both our neighboring countries recognize same-sex marriage, we are in danger of a "gay drain."

"Everyone needs a gay friend around," Colbert said. "They're so upbeat in the face of discrimination, who will we turn to when we need a second class group of citizens to marginalize?"

Gay marriage is legal in Canada and Mexico, which makes America the straight meat in a big gay sandwich.

VIDEO: Stephen Colbert fears U.S. will suffer a gay drain | San Diego Gay and Lesbian News

Cimarron29414 · 10-13-2010, 11:00 AM

Might I offer a suggestion: The only reason this is a left/right issue is because people frame it that way. It isn't. This is a basic human rights, equal protection, taxation issue - nothing more. You will go much further in swaying people to support the rights of all by taking it out of the left/right fight. If one wants to advance a just cause, perhaps we should all avoid divisive language. I understand there is a trend in the issue, but perhaps that's just because we perpetuate the rubber stamping as left/right.

I'm a Christian who believes homosexuality is sinful. However, I have marched in dozens of "Support Gay Marriage" parades/events. My personal view has zero to do with the fact that the federal government does not get to define love or unfairly tax you because of who you love.

dksuddeth · 10-13-2010, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Colbert said. "They're so upbeat in the face of discrimination, who will we turn to when we need a second class group of citizens to marginalize?"

just go after open carry folks, problem solved.

Baraka_Guru · 10-13-2010, 11:12 AM

Well, colour me in rainbow if those who oppose gay rights tend to be firmly on the right spectrum.

I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise; I just don't see it. There are exceptions, Cimarron, and you are one of them.

One is totally entitled to basic human rights, equal protection, etc., just don't be gay and in the military, don't be gay and want to get married, and don't be gay and want to adopt children with your gay partner, etc.

Is this a problem that can not be delineated for the most part between right and left?

There are reasons why gay rights tend to be viewed as a liberal cause, aren't there?

Cynthetiq · 10-13-2010, 11:37 AM

and you'd think that with the suicides that have transpired these past couple of weeks, the administration would see that there is something more to it than just business as usual.

Cimarron29414 · 10-13-2010, 11:52 AM

When you say "It's the damn righties, blah, blah, blah" - you marginalize and make people feel as if they have to switch sides in order to support a particular issue. Obviously, that reduces the likelihood of getting support from unlikely places because it becomes framed in an all-or-nothing proposition. If we are addressing the changing of a specific right, then focus on that right and those who oppose it, not their political leanings.

If you simply say, "Those who oppose gay marriage are incorrect and here's why..." it focuses the laser on those who oppose gay marriage. When you say, "The right are idiots because they oppose gay marriage....," it is not only untrue (some people who are on the right support it and some people who are on the left oppose it)...it creates an unnecessary defensiveness and does not move us towards the end game - which is building a quorum and correcting this injustice.

Or, I could be misunderstanding the point of this thread and have only now come to realize this is simply the weekly bashing of all things "not left" and therefore, right. In which case, carry on.

roachboy · 10-13-2010, 12:11 PM

cimmaron---where exactly does support for stuff like dadt come from? who votes for these "defense of marriage" referenda? you can't possibly pretend that these and other wedge issues that are exploited for political gain by conservative organizations are somehow not conservative issues.

what is it that keeps the obama administration from, as dan savage says, making things better when they are in a position to do it, and to do it right now? pressure from conservative organizations. period.

at the same time, it'd be foolish to say that there are not individuals who are in some ways conservative who oppose these same actions and the bigotry that animate them (and which makes them successful as wedge issues). for example, i have some friends who are quite militant around questions that pertain to equality for gay people, including the right to marry, and who have been for some time whose combination of dispositional conservatism on other grounds and disgust with what they call "gay inc." makes the space of the log cabin republicans comfortable for them. and while i might disagree with the calculations they make, i understand why they do what they do. this even as it baffles me every time i talk to these folk how they manage to convince themselves that the republican platforms in general are more amenable to ANY notion of equality for ANYONE, not just folk who happen to be gay. but it's a tactical thing for them. and a locally driven thing.

almost anything gets more complex as you move closer to "real life".

it's good to push rhetorically to make space---but you can't go so far as to deny reality to do it. well, you can. but it's better if you don't. the fact of the matter seems to me to be that the organized conservative movement has done a whole lot more to make folk like you feel uncomfortable with identifying as a conservative than anything anyone's said or could say here.

Derwood · 10-13-2010, 12:21 PM

except it was Clinton who signed in DOMA and Obama supports it. The truth is, virtually no one in Washington is pro gay rights. It doesn't score enough political points for them (but it DOES piss off portions of the voters in both parties)

KirStang · 10-13-2010, 12:35 PM

South Africa (OF ALL PLACES) has legalized same-sex marriage (IIRC). I really think the populace will need to appeal to SCOTUS to obtain any results on gay rights. (Which interestingly, in our society, is where we turn to in order to get anything major done. Legislators seem mostly paralyzed by the constant infighting).

It's toxic, it's polarizing, and for votes sake, Obama's probably not touching it.

State sanctioned subordination of certain classes should be frowned upon. But we do it to immigrants, homosexuals, and other classes who lack (for the most part) political participation.

The reason why I pointed out South Africa was because their highest court had a particularly poignant paragraph about gays and their exclusion:

Quote:

[The exclusion of same sex couples from marriage] represents a harsh if oblique statement by the law that same-sex couples are outsiders, and that their need for affirmation and protection of their intimate relations as human beings is somehow less than that of heterosexual couples. It reinforces the wounding notion that they are to be treated as biological oddities, as failed or lapsed human beings who do not fit in to normal society, and, as such do not qualify for the full moral concern and respect that our Constitution seeks to secure for everyone. It signifies that their capacity for love, commitment and accepting responsibility is by definition less worthy of regard than that of heterosexual couples.

So uh, where was the hope you promised us?

Baraka_Guru · 10-13-2010, 12:46 PM

It should be noted that so far the roads leading to the federal legalization of same-sex marriage have been paved by liberals and social democrats.

Cimarron29414 · 10-13-2010, 12:50 PM

rb-

As Derwood pointed out DODT and DOMA were products of a Democrat (read "left") president. So, we could go round and round over left vs. right and we will end up in the same place, just with a lot of time wasted. To that point, I'll repeat it only once more: if we want to solve issues, we need to focus on the issue and not allow the issues to be thrown into the money making arena of left vs. right. To throw it into that arena, as you guys seem intent on doing, perpetuates the injustice and disguises your indignation over that injustice with simply another slam on "the right".

If you honestly want to right the wrong, you're going to have to remove the labels.

SecretMethod70 · 10-13-2010, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

obama is a centrist.
this is not surprising.
it might be if you actually believed that lunatic claim from conservativeland that he is some kind of "leftist."
but he isn't. never was.

i'm pleased that enforcement of dadt was struck down yesterday, but it woulda been a lot better had it been repealed.

i'm disappointed in a lot of ways in the obama administration---except for one thing. they aren't republicans. a republican administration would be an unmitigated disaster.

Pretty much took the words right out of my mouth.

Baraka_Guru · 10-13-2010, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

rb-

As Derwood pointed out DODT and DOMA were products of a Democrat (read "left") president. So, we could go round and round over left vs. right and we will end up in the same place, just with a lot of time wasted. To that point, I'll repeat it only once more: if we want to solve issues, we need to focus on the issue and not allow the issues to be thrown into the money making arena of left vs. right. To throw it into that arena, as you guys seem intent on doing, perpetuates the injustice and disguises your indignation over that injustice with simply another slam on "the right".

If you honestly want to right the wrong, you're going to have to remove the labels.

I think you're missing his point. There is no "left" in power in the United States. If there are representatives in the Democrats who consider themselves left, then they are a minority group who must toe the line.

That DODT and DOMA are products of the Democrats is indicative that there needs to be a better counterbalance of left politics in America.

You can't ignore the left/right dynamic, because it's a problem. The Republicans and many of their constituents are going to be, for the most part, an obstruction to the advancement of gay rights. This despite the unconstitutionality of barring gays from certain activities afforded heterosexuals.

I'm not necessarily "slamming the right." I'm merely pointing out what I think is happening.

In relation to what I posted above, I think the LGBT community is going to need the support of more liberals and social democrats if they are going to get the rights they deserve. The track record elsewhere will tell you this. It's conservatives and Christians who are voting against these things.

On this topic, the right is a problem. But it's not right vs. left in America. That's because the left is absent.

Cimarron29414 · 10-13-2010, 01:23 PM

I wrote a big long thing, and realized I was breaking my promise. Fine, keep it as right/left thing. Activate the "Socialists of America" or whatever to "free the gay people". See how far that gets you.

Baraka_Guru · 10-13-2010, 01:36 PM

It's not me.

ring · 10-13-2010, 01:52 PM

Bucking the politics of religiosity that is inherent in this culture is tough.

This kinda reminds me of first grade back in '65.
The teacher commanding the left-handed writers to switch to the 'correct hand'
& punishing them if they didn't.
cuz..the left hand is of the devil & a communist.

Xerxys · 10-13-2010, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

The only reason this is a left/right issue is because people frame it that way. It isn't. This is a basic human rights, equal protection, taxation issue - nothing more.

Seriously, why isn't anyone listening to Cimarron? It seems almost intuitive. Or is problem solving not part of the politics? We just want to talk about who believes what instead of actually fixing what the fuck started the discussion in the first place?

Sounds like bitching for the sake of bitching to me.

Baraka_Guru · 10-13-2010, 02:34 PM

Well, the problem is that I don't accept Cimarron's premise. I think it's demonstrably a left/right issue. It's on the record in politics around the world.

Did you know that in some countries, same-sex marriage is constitutionally banned? Do you think liberals did that?

I think the only way we can get around the left/right issue is by focusing on the Constitution/Bill or Rights. I sincerely hope a SCOTUS ruling will set a precedent (or three) and soon. It's happened elsewhere.

The right isn't likely to vote for gay rights.

roachboy · 10-13-2010, 06:55 PM

i wrote a long-ass post about how i understand that in particular situations its more complicated than simple left/right...but i also require, just as a matter of intellectual honesty, that the overall right/right context be fucking acknowleged. i don't see any reason to unhinge ourselves from the empirical world in order to get along. i'm perfectly willing to have a discussion that moves across the seams of the larger discussion, such as it is. i think we all are.

but let's not get derailed into some tedious struggle over who gets to set the terms.
because that's what cimmaron is doing, really.
drop that shit and i think there's alot of conversations that can be had

Cimarron29414 · 10-14-2010, 05:12 AM

I have never denied that the machine has made this a left/right issue. I merely question perpetuating it as such. What's that definition of insanity again?

roachboy · 10-14-2010, 05:43 AM

so let's move off it then. besides, its not as though there's not plenty of reason to be disgusted with most of the interchangeable factions within the oligarchy on this general matter.

beyond that, what dan savage said.

Wes Mantooth · 10-14-2010, 10:25 AM

The biggest problem here is that gay rights has been turned into a wedge issue and politicians are forced to walk a tight rope down the middle at the risk of alienating support on one side or the other. Sadly its forced the question of gay rights into realm of opinion instead of law, something to be opined about in stump speeches and trivialized in political ads rather then being debated over law books.

Obamas opinion on gay rights shouldn't matter, nor should anybody else's. The question should be weather or not the govt has a compelling reason to deny certain rights to a group of citizens.

Tully Mars · 10-14-2010, 10:38 AM

^^ Yeah, what that guy said^^

FoolThemAll · 10-14-2010, 09:26 PM

I'd go further than I think Cimarron does and argue that it's irresponsible and counterproductive to associate even political attitudes with gay marriage and DOMA as though they necessarily have some unavoidable link to beating the shit out of fags and broadcasting your roommate's sex acts. That your neighborhood grandma with a strict preference for traditional marriage somehow is at fault for others with similar voting records and dissimilar psychopathy. And delusional to think that such accusations are going to make life easier for those in tortured social situations, that people like Dan Savage himself are ironically offering anything more tangible than hope.

In short, fuck Dan Savage.

filtherton · 10-15-2010, 03:38 AM

I'd fuck Dan Savage, and I'm not even gay.

I don't think there's a problem pointing out the association between the rightward side of the political spectrum and antigay bigotry. The correlation is plain as day. Now, before anyone rams a giant throbbing cock with "correlation does not equal causation" written on it up my glistening, gaping anus, let me just point out that I realize that correlation doesn't equal causation. The confounder here seems to be a tendency towards an unrational but easy-to-rationalize overcommitment to the status quo (or some naively self-serving ideas about how things used to be).

Isn't a large component of the "conserve" component of conservative about maintaining the status quo (or some pollyanna view about how the status quo was when your parents were kids)? Certainly, there are those on the right who are capable of appreciating innovation with respect to social norms. Given the current state of conservative discourse in this country, I suspect that they are either quiet folk, or in the minority.

Right-folk tend to dislike homosexuality more because disliking homosexuality is one of the probable outcomes of the type of personal dispositions that comprise conservative thought. An analogous phenomena occurs in lefty-folk too.

genuinegirly · 10-15-2010, 04:04 AM

A number of my homosexual friends are politically conservative. They are professional investors, business consultants, auditors, doctors, dentists... When it comes down to it, they would never vote for a Democrat or Socialist. Instead, they are trying to change the Republican Party's stance against gays by showing conservatives that they share political goals.

It seems that on the whole, Democrats are offering no more than lip service. At least conservatives are upfront with their bias.

roachboy · 10-15-2010, 04:25 AM

i've run into folk who work from the same basic vantagepoint. i find the way the thinking works to be tactically incomprehensible, preferring to work with the republicans who tolerate and/or use the log cabin in a special zone of expediency, but whose overall politics are antithetical to questions of equality.

i had a broader conversation with some friends the other night about this same kind of thing, people who vote republican even though they are old-line liberal types (you know, in the 24/7 cable news sense) as a way of protesting or trying to change what they see as entrenched and unresponsive politicos backed by a powerful state-level democratic party machine. the thinking is entirely local. bigger questions like "but these are republicans" register, but what happens is that these folk emphasize personality characteristics of the candidate they support and imagine that a republican will somehow represent their interests because he is a "good man" or she a "good woman."

i don't really understand the bracketing of republicanness in a tactical situation.

but what this seems to point to is an obvious problem that lots of people see from different angles very often of limitations to the american single party state with two right wings system.

except that the right wings are identical.

the question, insofar as it's of any real interest---by which i mean there's political reality in which this is self-evidently a wedge issue used by the right as an aspect of its interaction with the social conservatives the republicans crawled into bed with via ralph reed.
there's interest-group politics which typically cut across these lines because focus on a single issue often works that way and it's also usually politically expedient to go narrow on these matters.
then there's the scatter of individual viewpoints, which may or may not cross with any of the vectors that comprise either of those two fields (if you like)....

we can keep lobbing rocks at this level if we want. it seems, though, that the scenario is pretty obvious and that nothing will come of it.
but lobbing rocks is sometimes fun.

filtherton · 10-15-2010, 04:25 AM

Except many of them aren't up front about their bias. Hence, every argument ever against the legalization of gay marriage.

Tully Mars · 10-15-2010, 05:37 AM

I agree with filtherton, they're not up front at all regarding their gay bigotry.

And all politicians have done little but provide lip service on almost all major issues. The GOP screams about smaller government and less spending yet every time in power they make government bigger and spend like there's no tomorrow.

This has created an opening for many of the tea party candidates. I would consider that to be a welcome change, fresh blood and all. My problem is many of them can not answer even the most basic of questions on how government works or what should be done to solve the issues at hand. And many are on or have many family members accepting the "socialist" government hand outs they scream about. They seem hypocritical and offer no real solutions. Instead they offer party line slogans and sound bites. If I'm looking to hire a new mechanic for my vehicles I'd like one that has at least a basic understanding of the internal combustion engine.

genuinegirly · 10-15-2010, 05:47 AM

Since it seems the conversation has strayed from the core questions asked in the OP (which is not necessarily bad), I have added a poll to get the answers I was originally seeking.

Tully Mars · 10-15-2010, 06:15 AM

I voted no because I think he's just playing the "I'm not as bad as the other side" card to court their vote.

Pearl Trade · 10-15-2010, 12:30 PM

He's not against gay rights, but he hasn't shown anything to say he's for it.

My philosophy is: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Obama is not part of the solution for promoting gay rights, so he's part of the problem. I vote "yes," he is against gay rights.

Tully Mars · 10-15-2010, 12:33 PM

The poll is-

Quote:

Is Obama supportive of gay rights?

Not "is he against gay rights." So if you voted yes you may not have selected what you meant.

Pearl Trade · 10-15-2010, 01:33 PM

Poll might be a little convoluted now with the trickster that is Genuinegirly.

View Poll Results: Is Obama Against Gay Rights?
Yes.	5	55.56%
No.	3	33.33%
Other.	1	11.11%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

10-13-2010, 05:43 AM	#3 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	When I learned I was stuck with Obama for 4 years, I did take consolation in the fact that he would right the wrongs of discrimination against gays. So, now I just see his tenure as a complete disappoint rather than mostly a disappointment. I'm also not terribly surprised that a politician lied. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

10-13-2010, 05:48 AM	#4 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	obama is a centrist. this is not surprising. it might be if you actually believed that lunatic claim from conservativeland that he is some kind of "leftist." but he isn't. never was. i'm pleased that enforcement of dadt was struck down yesterday, but it woulda been a lot better had it been repealed. i'm disappointed in a lot of ways in the obama administration---except for one thing. they aren't republicans. a republican administration would be an unmitigated disaster. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-13-2010, 06:19 AM	#5 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	If Obama were a leftist, he would have made a point of bringing America into the 21st century as far as gay rights are concerned in the developed world. Even with same-sex marriage aside (as only a handful of countries currently permit this), and with the exception of the Matthew Shepard Act, Obama has done relatively little to advance the rights of the LGBT community. The federal government should be stepping in to widen rights that are permitted in some states, including the recognition of same-sex marriages despite the ceremony itself being banned locally, permitting same-sex couples to adopt, in addition to allowing gays to openly serve in the military. Considering it was only this decade that the Supreme Court essentially legalized sex amongst the LGBT community, the U.S. has a lot of catching up to do. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't seem up to the task. I understand that there are many other issues that are pressing, mainly economic, but I haven't even seen Obama hinting at the desire to tackle these issues adequately. With an issue such as same-sex marriage, I think he's just playing politics. Centrist indeed. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 10-13-2010 at 06:21 AM..

10-13-2010, 11:00 AM	#8 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Might I offer a suggestion: The only reason this is a left/right issue is because people frame it that way. It isn't. This is a basic human rights, equal protection, taxation issue - nothing more. You will go much further in swaying people to support the rights of all by taking it out of the left/right fight. If one wants to advance a just cause, perhaps we should all avoid divisive language. I understand there is a trend in the issue, but perhaps that's just because we perpetuate the rubber stamping as left/right. I'm a Christian who believes homosexuality is sinful. However, I have marched in dozens of "Support Gay Marriage" parades/events. My personal view has zero to do with the fact that the federal government does not get to define love or unfairly tax you because of who you love. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

10-13-2010, 04:40 AM	#2 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Obama has always been mostly talk when it comes to glbt rights. He doesn't even think gay marriage is okay.

10-13-2010, 11:12 AM	#10 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Well, colour me in rainbow if those who oppose gay rights tend to be firmly on the right spectrum. I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise; I just don't see it. There are exceptions, Cimarron, and you are one of them. One is totally entitled to basic human rights, equal protection, etc., just don't be gay and in the military, don't be gay and want to get married, and don't be gay and want to adopt children with your gay partner, etc. Is this a problem that can not be delineated for the most part between right and left? There are reasons why gay rights tend to be viewed as a liberal cause, aren't there? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 10-13-2010 at 01:41 PM.. Reason: typos

10-13-2010, 11:37 AM	#11 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	and you'd think that with the suicides that have transpired these past couple of weeks, the administration would see that there is something more to it than just business as usual. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

10-13-2010, 11:52 AM	#12 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	When you say "It's the damn righties, blah, blah, blah" - you marginalize and make people feel as if they have to switch sides in order to support a particular issue. Obviously, that reduces the likelihood of getting support from unlikely places because it becomes framed in an all-or-nothing proposition. If we are addressing the changing of a specific right, then focus on that right and those who oppose it, not their political leanings. If you simply say, "Those who oppose gay marriage are incorrect and here's why..." it focuses the laser on those who oppose gay marriage. When you say, "The right are idiots because they oppose gay marriage....," it is not only untrue (some people who are on the right support it and some people who are on the left oppose it)...it creates an unnecessary defensiveness and does not move us towards the end game - which is building a quorum and correcting this injustice. Or, I could be misunderstanding the point of this thread and have only now come to realize this is simply the weekly bashing of all things "not left" and therefore, right. In which case, carry on. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

10-13-2010, 12:11 PM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	cimmaron---where exactly does support for stuff like dadt come from? who votes for these "defense of marriage" referenda? you can't possibly pretend that these and other wedge issues that are exploited for political gain by conservative organizations are somehow not conservative issues. what is it that keeps the obama administration from, as dan savage says, making things better when they are in a position to do it, and to do it right now? pressure from conservative organizations. period. at the same time, it'd be foolish to say that there are not individuals who are in some ways conservative who oppose these same actions and the bigotry that animate them (and which makes them successful as wedge issues). for example, i have some friends who are quite militant around questions that pertain to equality for gay people, including the right to marry, and who have been for some time whose combination of dispositional conservatism on other grounds and disgust with what they call "gay inc." makes the space of the log cabin republicans comfortable for them. and while i might disagree with the calculations they make, i understand why they do what they do. this even as it baffles me every time i talk to these folk how they manage to convince themselves that the republican platforms in general are more amenable to ANY notion of equality for ANYONE, not just folk who happen to be gay. but it's a tactical thing for them. and a locally driven thing. almost anything gets more complex as you move closer to "real life". it's good to push rhetorically to make space---but you can't go so far as to deny reality to do it. well, you can. but it's better if you don't. the fact of the matter seems to me to be that the organized conservative movement has done a whole lot more to make folk like you feel uncomfortable with identifying as a conservative than anything anyone's said or could say here. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-13-2010, 12:21 PM	#14 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	except it was Clinton who signed in DOMA and Obama supports it. The truth is, virtually no one in Washington is pro gay rights. It doesn't score enough political points for them (but it DOES piss off portions of the voters in both parties) __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

10-13-2010, 12:46 PM	#16 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	It should be noted that so far the roads leading to the federal legalization of same-sex marriage have been paved by liberals and social democrats. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

10-13-2010, 12:50 PM	#17 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	rb- As Derwood pointed out DODT and DOMA were products of a Democrat (read "left") president. So, we could go round and round over left vs. right and we will end up in the same place, just with a lot of time wasted. To that point, I'll repeat it only once more: if we want to solve issues, we need to focus on the issue and not allow the issues to be thrown into the money making arena of left vs. right. To throw it into that arena, as you guys seem intent on doing, perpetuates the injustice and disguises your indignation over that injustice with simply another slam on "the right". If you honestly want to right the wrong, you're going to have to remove the labels. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

10-13-2010, 01:23 PM	#20 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	I wrote a big long thing, and realized I was breaking my promise. Fine, keep it as right/left thing. Activate the "Socialists of America" or whatever to "free the gay people". See how far that gets you. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

10-13-2010, 01:36 PM	#21 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	It's not me. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

10-13-2010, 01:52 PM	#22 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	Bucking the politics of religiosity that is inherent in this culture is tough. This kinda reminds me of first grade back in '65. The teacher commanding the left-handed writers to switch to the 'correct hand' & punishing them if they didn't. cuz..the left hand is of the devil & a communist.

10-13-2010, 02:34 PM	#24 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Well, the problem is that I don't accept Cimarron's premise. I think it's demonstrably a left/right issue. It's on the record in politics around the world. Did you know that in some countries, same-sex marriage is constitutionally banned? Do you think liberals did that? I think the only way we can get around the left/right issue is by focusing on the Constitution/Bill or Rights. I sincerely hope a SCOTUS ruling will set a precedent (or three) and soon. It's happened elsewhere. The right isn't likely to vote for gay rights. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

10-13-2010, 06:55 PM	#25 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i wrote a long-ass post about how i understand that in particular situations its more complicated than simple left/right...but i also require, just as a matter of intellectual honesty, that the overall right/right context be fucking acknowleged. i don't see any reason to unhinge ourselves from the empirical world in order to get along. i'm perfectly willing to have a discussion that moves across the seams of the larger discussion, such as it is. i think we all are. but let's not get derailed into some tedious struggle over who gets to set the terms. because that's what cimmaron is doing, really. drop that shit and i think there's alot of conversations that can be had __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-14-2010, 05:12 AM	#26 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	I have never denied that the machine has made this a left/right issue. I merely question perpetuating it as such. What's that definition of insanity again? __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

10-14-2010, 05:43 AM	#27 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so let's move off it then. besides, its not as though there's not plenty of reason to be disgusted with most of the interchangeable factions within the oligarchy on this general matter. beyond that, what dan savage said. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-14-2010, 10:25 AM	#28 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	The biggest problem here is that gay rights has been turned into a wedge issue and politicians are forced to walk a tight rope down the middle at the risk of alienating support on one side or the other. Sadly its forced the question of gay rights into realm of opinion instead of law, something to be opined about in stump speeches and trivialized in political ads rather then being debated over law books. Obamas opinion on gay rights shouldn't matter, nor should anybody else's. The question should be weather or not the govt has a compelling reason to deny certain rights to a group of citizens. __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”

10-14-2010, 10:38 AM	#29 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	^^ Yeah, what that guy said^^ __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

10-14-2010, 09:26 PM	#30 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	I'd go further than I think Cimarron does and argue that it's irresponsible and counterproductive to associate even political attitudes with gay marriage and DOMA as though they necessarily have some unavoidable link to beating the shit out of fags and broadcasting your roommate's sex acts. That your neighborhood grandma with a strict preference for traditional marriage somehow is at fault for others with similar voting records and dissimilar psychopathy. And delusional to think that such accusations are going to make life easier for those in tortured social situations, that people like Dan Savage himself are ironically offering anything more tangible than hope. In short, fuck Dan Savage. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

10-15-2010, 03:38 AM	#31 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I'd fuck Dan Savage, and I'm not even gay. I don't think there's a problem pointing out the association between the rightward side of the political spectrum and antigay bigotry. The correlation is plain as day. Now, before anyone rams a giant throbbing cock with "correlation does not equal causation" written on it up my glistening, gaping anus, let me just point out that I realize that correlation doesn't equal causation. The confounder here seems to be a tendency towards an unrational but easy-to-rationalize overcommitment to the status quo (or some naively self-serving ideas about how things used to be). Isn't a large component of the "conserve" component of conservative about maintaining the status quo (or some pollyanna view about how the status quo was when your parents were kids)? Certainly, there are those on the right who are capable of appreciating innovation with respect to social norms. Given the current state of conservative discourse in this country, I suspect that they are either quiet folk, or in the minority. Right-folk tend to dislike homosexuality more because disliking homosexuality is one of the probable outcomes of the type of personal dispositions that comprise conservative thought. An analogous phenomena occurs in lefty-folk too.

10-15-2010, 04:04 AM	#32 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	A number of my homosexual friends are politically conservative. They are professional investors, business consultants, auditors, doctors, dentists... When it comes down to it, they would never vote for a Democrat or Socialist. Instead, they are trying to change the Republican Party's stance against gays by showing conservatives that they share political goals. It seems that on the whole, Democrats are offering no more than lip service. At least conservatives are upfront with their bias. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy Last edited by genuinegirly; 10-15-2010 at 04:06 AM..

10-15-2010, 04:25 AM	#33 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i've run into folk who work from the same basic vantagepoint. i find the way the thinking works to be tactically incomprehensible, preferring to work with the republicans who tolerate and/or use the log cabin in a special zone of expediency, but whose overall politics are antithetical to questions of equality. i had a broader conversation with some friends the other night about this same kind of thing, people who vote republican even though they are old-line liberal types (you know, in the 24/7 cable news sense) as a way of protesting or trying to change what they see as entrenched and unresponsive politicos backed by a powerful state-level democratic party machine. the thinking is entirely local. bigger questions like "but these are republicans" register, but what happens is that these folk emphasize personality characteristics of the candidate they support and imagine that a republican will somehow represent their interests because he is a "good man" or she a "good woman." i don't really understand the bracketing of republicanness in a tactical situation. but what this seems to point to is an obvious problem that lots of people see from different angles very often of limitations to the american single party state with two right wings system. except that the right wings are identical. the question, insofar as it's of any real interest---by which i mean there's political reality in which this is self-evidently a wedge issue used by the right as an aspect of its interaction with the social conservatives the republicans crawled into bed with via ralph reed. there's interest-group politics which typically cut across these lines because focus on a single issue often works that way and it's also usually politically expedient to go narrow on these matters. then there's the scatter of individual viewpoints, which may or may not cross with any of the vectors that comprise either of those two fields (if you like).... we can keep lobbing rocks at this level if we want. it seems, though, that the scenario is pretty obvious and that nothing will come of it. but lobbing rocks is sometimes fun. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-15-2010, 04:25 AM	#34 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Except many of them aren't up front about their bias. Hence, every argument ever against the legalization of gay marriage.

10-15-2010, 05:37 AM	#35 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	I agree with filtherton, they're not up front at all regarding their gay bigotry. And all politicians have done little but provide lip service on almost all major issues. The GOP screams about smaller government and less spending yet every time in power they make government bigger and spend like there's no tomorrow. This has created an opening for many of the tea party candidates. I would consider that to be a welcome change, fresh blood and all. My problem is many of them can not answer even the most basic of questions on how government works or what should be done to solve the issues at hand. And many are on or have many family members accepting the "socialist" government hand outs they scream about. They seem hypocritical and offer no real solutions. Instead they offer party line slogans and sound bites. If I'm looking to hire a new mechanic for my vehicles I'd like one that has at least a basic understanding of the internal combustion engine. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

10-15-2010, 05:47 AM	#36 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	Since it seems the conversation has strayed from the core questions asked in the OP (which is not necessarily bad), I have added a poll to get the answers I was originally seeking. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

10-15-2010, 06:15 AM	#37 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	I voted no because I think he's just playing the "I'm not as bad as the other side" card to court their vote. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

10-15-2010, 12:30 PM	#38 (permalink)
Pearl Trade Addict Location: Houston, Texas	He's not against gay rights, but he hasn't shown anything to say he's for it. My philosophy is: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Obama is not part of the solution for promoting gay rights, so he's part of the problem. I vote "yes," he is against gay rights. __________________ Our revenge will be the laughter of our children. Give me convenience or give me death!

10-15-2010, 01:33 PM	#40 (permalink)
Pearl Trade Addict Location: Houston, Texas	Poll might be a little convoluted now with the trickster that is Genuinegirly. __________________ Our revenge will be the laughter of our children. Give me convenience or give me death!