In a country where it’s hard to believe we actually have a black president this pace is too slow?

I get it: he’s not big on teh gheys…

Um…d’Fuh? So all of the concrete things the President has done (repealing DADT, dropping defense of DOMA, etc., etc.) are outweighed by his failure to be vocally ahead of public opinion on a matter that isn’t actually within his power?

Again: d’Fuh?

It’s simply appalling that an American President can voice unequivocal support for allowing the STATES to vote on whether or not to allow all citizens to have the same basic set of human rights.

The fact that it’s an African American voicing support for what can fairly be described as the Jim Crow doctrine of “Separate but Equal” is nauseating…

mikey

God forbid that he actually take a lead on something that might be less than 51% popular. Wouldn’t want to get dirty or be seen to be taking sides. He does everything in the most hands-off way possible just in case it goes south.

As a golfer he must be the king of the lay up…

Exactly. There’s this concept called “fortune favors the bold”. People respect and will vote for persons who don’t look and act like easily-rolled wusses. This is especially true for indie voters.

It’s why Bachmann, crazy as she is, is crushing Pawlenty without even breaking a sweat and is so dangerously close to taking out the anointed Romney before the primaries even start that the GOP’s movers and shakers have told FOX and the Moonie Times to start going after her (witness the “flake” and “Gacy” stories of the past week). Bachmann comes off as gutsy whereas Pawlenty comes off as a dishrag. Of course, they can’t keep openly attacking her, not without the risk of alienating the teabaggers, but they can leak all manner of dirt on her to liberal bloggers so as to keep their fingerprints off of the knife.

Sorry, TBogg, I gotta agree with TomHilton on this.

The reality is that the bufords get all het up with the M word is mentioned, and while a random sampling of people may show support of over 50%, that doesn’t mean that a majority of voters in IN, OH, VA, NC, CO, or other states Obama won in 2008 are on the same page. Also, we know that marriage equality has the support of well over half of those under 30, which helps push it over into majority approval. Problem is, young people are the least likely to show up to vote.

If Obama could make marriage equality the law of the land, or even help it become the law of the land, simply by voicing his support, I’d agree with you. But he can’t. And if he had said what we’d like to hear in 2008, he probably wouldn’t have won a lot of those states, DADT would still be in force, President McCain’s Justice Department would be vigorously defending DOMA, and Vice President Palin would be out there screeching about the need for a constitutional amendment enshrining the second-class status of gays and lesbians forever in our law.

Again, his support won’t change a thing, other than make it more likely that he’ll lose some of the states he carried in 2008. I think he should be pressured on the issue AFTER the election, when vocal support will no longer create the risk that Michelle Bachmann will be appointing the next SC justice. Because that’s where this is ultimately going to be resolved, and my guess is we won’t like the way it is ruled if it goes before a majority conservative court.

I’d be a lot more het up about this myself if I was gay – I completely understand the frustration there. But…does anyone really believe that the president actually OPPOSES marriage equality? I don’t. I think it’s political expediency. And while political expediency often comes off as cowardice and I’m not a huge fan of it, it exists because sometimes it’s needed and it works. This is one of those times.

My favorite line of the entire year so far was someone commenting on Digby’s rare appearance in The Hill, in an article in which she asked basically if the Republicans scammed Obama into “pivoting” to worrying about deficits, so that they could attack him from the left about doing far too little about jobs.

The comment was “I’m glad the Republicans are coming at him from the left. He listens to them.”

Yes, Obama has pushed some good stuff, even some of what he said he would while campaigning. For a lot of the rest he’s been woefully weak and noncommittal. It’s a valid criticism, no matter what staunch Obama loyalists try to tell you.

Seeing people watch Obama “pivot” to focusing on the deficit and then complaining that “the Republican myth” about worrying about the deficit has taken over Washington is almost comical.

Well yes, it has taken over. If only someone could push the other side of the story, but who?

Just to add – I’m not a fan of the kind of mealy-mouthed response he gave earlier today, so on that point, I do agree with you. My preference would have been for him to stick with what he’s been saying since 2008: “My personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman. I support civil unions for same-sex couples. But states and communities can continue to define their own community standards on this issue as they always have.”

Again, not that I believe he is opposed, or believes his own line about “between a man and a woman,” but it’s a safer line to stick with what you’ve been saying all along.

So what you’re saying is that Obama is a coward pretending to be against gay marriage to get support, from whom god only knows. It won’t be republicans or democrats. And you’re okay with that, as long as your tribe wins.

You’re also saying that morality is irrelevent, taking a moral stand is utterly unnecessary, and you don’t expect your president to act morally. So you’ll support him no matter what because it’s no skin off your nose.

I don’t mean to be mean but I am not sure that you realize how bad that sounds.

Re: PW and Jenn. Good points both but I want simple, easy to understand, black vs. white answers. We can always change the wiki later.

Fucking nuance.

No, Susan, I’m saying I believe in doing what works. And if a bold statement by the president helps increase the odds that a Republican will be appointing the next SC justice, that’s not something that works.

I’m saying it’s much preferable to have to wait a couple of years to hear your president say what you’d like to hear than it is to wait several more decades before you get a court that will rule in your favor. Particularly given that this is an issue which the president cannot fix all on his own. This is what’s known as “winning the battle but losing the war” except in this case, it won’t even win the battle.

I think it likely that even today some states would likely not vote to repeal Jim Crow.

The 14th Amendment made it the Federal Goverment’s duty to oversee and protect

“the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Thus, deferring to the states is a strategy not really in keeping with the US Constitution

Deferring to the states on issues relating to domestic contracts may not be in keeping with the constitution, but the precedent is that the states have always had control over those issues, and so they will continue to until the court rules otherwise. Again, nothing the president says is going to determine the outcome there. Though it does underline the need to keep our eyes on the main prize – the composition of the court.

No, you are losing the battle and the war. Obama didn’t do what works and he never said what people want to hear. People with gay loved ones in NY did that.

You got a Republican Democrat as president who does not believe that gays deserve to get married and who handed over the middle class to the rich to destroy. You get someone who moves the Overton window so far over to the right that liberals no longer feel like their party wants them. And you do nothing but prolong our descent into third world status.

I’m sick of having the Supreme Court held as blackmail over our heads. They just screwed over women again; what use were Obama’s selections there, or any other time business wants something?

Andrew Sullivan is beside himself with joy, imagining a gay man weeping over the coffin of his dead soldier lover. To me it just seems like another American killed to defend Exxon and BP.

Maybe you think it’s fine to throw women under the bus and dangle gay rights before us like a carrot on a stick but I don’t.

discussing human rights issues in terms of political strategy is reprehensible to me. obama and his supporters here should be very ashamed.

People with gay loved ones in NY did that.

Given that it was an issue to be decided by their state legislature and governor, isn’t that who SHOULD have done that?

Beyond that, please don’t bother posting to me again. I really, really dislike being accused of shitpiling the US into the ground simply because I don’t agree with you that in this case, a fruitless gesture is more important than the big picture. Which, as noted, has already featured such betrayals as the end of DADT and standing down on DOMA.

Nothin’ any president does is gonna please SusanofTexas. Ever… She demands the perfect over the possible. I’m disappointed in the President as well. My deep expectations are being dashed. But the alternatives are terrifying.
Re elect him and his last four years could be historically transformative. Or vote for Romney or Bachman..or Palin..

You think when it came to the Civil Rights Amendment LBJ didn’t both think – and have plenty of strategy discussions – that discussed human rights issues in terms of political strategy?

You poor, poor naif.

“discussing human rights issues in terms of political strategy is reprehensible”

That’s too bad. What do you think the strikes in, and international boycotts of, South Africa were? They were all about political strategy. Mandela bided his time, lost many battles, and he still won the war.

I am in no way saying Barry’s like Nelson, but time is an element that needs to be factored into how such issues as marriage equality evolve on a societal scale.

I demand the moral over the immoral. I don’t shrug when my president betrays me to his rich benefactors. I’m not afraid of Romney and I don’t believe Palin or Bachmann will ever be elected.

The big picture is the explosion of the gap between poor and rich. But I don’t blame you for asking me to stop talking to you, JennofArc. It’s very painful to have to listen to someone tell you that your leaders are only loyal to the people who get them reelected, and only as long as they are useful.

sorry, you’re the naif if you think this is good strategy.

obama = mandela. lol

Missing the point, which is that regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the President’s (inconsequential and fundamentally irrelevant) comments on gay marriage, it’s deeply silly (given his record) to say “he’s not big on teh gheys”.

You thought. Do me a fucking favor. Shut up, listen, and learn.

Well, then, Susan, how would you like it if I said that you were working towards making sure gays and lesbians in your enlightened state of Texas will not have the right to marry for at least a decade more? Would that be a fair assessment for me to make, since I disagree with you?

Because, come on, you tell me how you’re going to get marriage equality in Texas – or how we’re going to get it here in my state of Arkansas – without it being ruled by a friendly court? Huh? HOW THE FUCK DO YOU PROPOSE TO DO THAT? What, you’re going to get a referendum passed? The Texas lege is suddenly going to become uber gay-friendly?

So, is it now fair for me to accuse you of trying to prohibit MY gay loved ones here in Arkansas of the only realistic chance that they’ll see in their lifetimes of being able to legally marry their life partners? Is that FAIR Susan, or ACCURATE in any way? Is it PAINFUL to have to listen to someone tell you that due to your clinging to wanting to hear some nice words that you will be denying them the rights everyone else has?

There’s a way to respectfully disagree with people who support the same goals but differ on how to get there. The above is apparently what you believe is the way to go about it.

why don’t you do me a ‘fucking’ favor and go make your 3d chess strategery case to a bunch of gheys. see, it’s easy to preach patience when it’s not your life being ‘fucked’ with.

I don’t have to preach anything to a bunch of gheys, travy, because a lot of them are preaching it themselves.

Please, fill me in as soon as you come up with a way for us to get legal gay marriage here in my state that doesn’t involve a Supreme Court ruling, and I’m sure all my ghey friends here will get on board with you.

At the risk of sounding like a firebagger, that’s a pretty tone-deaf answer and you have to wonder exactly what constituency he’s playing to.

It’s who he’s not playing to. You read Cole; do you see nothing in the notion that Obama’s best move is to keep his nose out of this, lest he serve up the fundies with an issue to get the vote out in 2012 as the Repubs try to drag Romney across the finish line? He’s not going to get anything done by weighing in on it, and he’s only going to piss off and mobilize the opposition if he does.

As for the sounding like a Teabagger thing, well, you lie down with dogs…

Andrew Sullivan:

“Some now want this president to be Andrew Cuomo, a heroically gifted advocate of marriage equality who used all his skills to make it the law in his state. But the truth is that a governor is integral to this issue in a way a president can never be.”

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/06/a-president-not-a-governor.html

SOT: Like you, Tea Partiers also think strictly in b&w terms. That kind passion is admirable but ultimately ineffective. Also, did you not live through the disastrous 8 years of Bush?

Gosh, JennofArc, maybe our president could advocate for gay marraige and use the power of his office to twist arms, like LBJ did with civil rights. Do you think Texas was willing to give Black people civil rights? Did LBJ get them passed by saying that while he didn’t believe in them he’s willing to let other people fight for them?

Outside of litigation (which isn’t within the President’s control), is anyone actually pushing to federalize the issue? Is there a Marriage Equality Act under consideration in Congress? Are LGBT rights organizations pushing for the Federal government to take it away from the states?

Answer: no. Because right now, in practical terms (which are the only terms that matter), letting the states deal with it is the only way to advance the ball; any effort to legislate nationwide marriage equality would crash and burn and almost certainly result in something even worse than DOMA. Yes, leaving it to the states is sub-optimal, but it’s less bad than having it decided at the federal level.

In the ’50s-’60s, obviously, the reverse was true. Pursuing federal action on civil rights was at least as much pragmatism as ‘principle’.

So, your proposal is that Obama’s going to go up to Capitol Hill and twist the arms of a bunch of yahoo rednecks elected by teabaggers, and they’re going to pass a law that says gay people can get married in Texas and Arkansas and all these other places that the yahoo rednecks represent?

Have you been paying attention the last few years?

yes, the fundies will all jump on board the obama bandwagon after this latest statement. ‘states rights’ is a dog whistle term anyway, right? so brilliant. i smell electoral college domination in 2012. HOPE!

Yes. And yes. And I know very well Obama would not, because he does not want to.

Everyone is ignoring the moral aspect. If you don’t expect or demand for your leaders to act morally, they will not. And here we are, mired in wars and broke and watching our childhood poverty level jump to 25%. Why? Because we would rather win elections than fight for what is right.

You are getting almost nothing and are fine with it. You will fight to get nothing, to become poorer, to be used and thrown away.

oh susan, morality is for mere naifs. better to climb on the backs of teh gheys for a couple extra points in lost red states. plus, don’t want to look like a fag heading into an election year.

Well, I guess Arkansas Equality, who I represented as a lobbyist at the legislature, were a bunch of immoral losers who fought to get nothing, become poorer, and get used and thrown away when the director and board unanimously voted in 2004 not to mount a counter-offensive to the state constitutional amendment making it illegal for gays to marry, and chose instead to fight the issue of allowing gays to legally adopt children.

Had to be that they were immoral, rather than just realistic about what they could achieve and what they couldn’t. And thanks to them, we’re all poorer and have been used and thrown away.

Even though gays can legally adopt children here.

Whatever. I’m sure their time and resources would have been better spent in the losing battle against the anti-gay marriage amendment, seeing as how it only got a 70% majority of the vote.

Also. Too. Perhaps the reason Obama doesn’t want to go twist the arms of a bunch of redneck yahoos is because he knows it will be a waste of his time. It IS possible, you know, that sometimes the man makes decisions that aren’t entirel the result of him being a spineless, weaselly, do-nothing milquetoast Republican-Lite. For instance, I’m pretty sure none of those considerations come into play when he’s choosing a brand of toothpaste, so it’s possible that some other decisions are also not made solely on those terms.

For someone with supposedly sharp political insticts, Obama has no fucking clue and cannot read a fucking opinion poll. A majority of Americans support same sex marriage. Those who do not will never vote for a Democrat, especially a black one.

My bad…the “defense of marriage” amendment got only a mere 75% approval.

Not true.

My mother’s 89-year-old husband voted for Obama, but he’s still a staunch homophobe. I think you’d find that a lot of the New Deal elderly who still vote Democratic would be in that boat.

so all of you defending obama would be criticizing him had he come out with a statement in full support of gay marriage? really?

I was discussing what Obama should say, not what the states are doing.

You do not understand–Obama is irrelevent. It’s not about him or whether or not I like him. It’s not about Democrat versus Republican or the Supreme Court or gay rights. It’s about money. Money chose Obama as the Democratic candidate. Money determines who Obama supports and who he doesn’t support. Money determines who gets civil and ecnomic rights.

Twenty-five percent childhood poverty. Obama should be driven out of office for that alone.

Of course not. Though I would question his political calculation if he did. But I’d still support him because, as I’ve noted, it’s pretty damn important that he win, and my sniping at him about something I thought was a bad political move wouldn’t help that.

jenn- you like most southerners have a very inflated sense of how important your ‘support’ is.

It’s very frustrating for all of us to watch Obama tie himself up in knots to avoid giving the right wing a sound bite, but that’s his strategy. He’s playing to mushy middle. It’s hard to see that there’s really a middle ground between rights and no rights. Eventually he’s going to have to stop dodging the question and take a stand … but I don’t know if he’s really capable of it.

Honestly, I’m not really our country is going to survive the next 20 years. There are so many angry and stupid people who are all het up, I think the ground is very fertile for a fascist to rise. I don’t really see anyone currently prominent in national politics who fills the bill, but it could happen.

It’s about money. Money chose Obama as the Democratic candidate. Money determines who Obama supports and who he doesn’t support. Money determines who gets civil and ecnomic rights.

Twenty-five percent childhood poverty. Obama should be driven out of office for that alone.

We could say the same about every president going back to at least Carter, and most of the ones before that. Though I don’t really see that Obama has some financial motive in holding down the gays. As for the childhood poverty, yes, it’s an outrage. But it’s not one that sprang up overnight either. FWIW, I have quite a few disappointments with Obama as well, but I don’t think it would productive to allow them to cloud my judgement on the big picture. I’d like everything to be perfect; I’ve worked on campaign finance reform for 20 years and look how far that’s come…backwards. But it’s the environment we currently have to navigate, and I’m well aware that he didn’t create it and he doesn’t have the legislative support he would need to change it if he wanted to – and I’ve not seen much indication that he does. In short, I could blame him for it, for being its creature, but it wouldn’t change anything other than help someone far worse get elected. Some might see that as a dark and defeatist attitude. I just see it as reality.

And you exhibit the same fault as many other “progressives” in that you completely dismiss us and the unique challenges we have to deal with here in Redneckistan.

When are you going to present your strategy for how we’re going to get marriage equality here in Arkansas without court intervention? I’m all ears, Champ.

Oh goody, that is a whole entire one person. The plural of anecdote is not data. While my statement was a bit hyperbolic, the reality is that most opponents of same sex marriage (as shown in the freaking polling data) are social conservatives and Republicans. Obama will not lose any significant number of votes by coming out in favor of an issue which a majority of Americans supports. Nor will he likely gain any by not doing so.

I’d like everything to be perfect; I’ve worked on campaign finance reform for 20 years and look how far that’s come…backwards.

If what you are doing is not working or is actually hurting you, do something else.

The big picture is our children. Not winning an election.

here’s my strategy: unequivocally stand up for equality in public, private, professionally and personally. see, when you preach pragmatism you are validating the idea that gays are a liability which perpetuates the situation. and like i said above, your political calculus has about zero effect on the issue whereas at least mine creates an environment of acceptance and morality.

obama could do the same and it would be a whole lot more useful than his disgraceful call for ‘state rights’ because no one is jumping to the gop ship over gay marriage.

I’d agree that he doesn’t stand to gain any by not doing so.

But “most” doesn’t equal “all,” and unless you’re looking at state-by-state polling data, I think you’re putting too many eggs in that one basket. 52 or 53% support in a random nationwide survey doesn’t mean that 52 or 53% in each state are on board. There are several socially-conservative states he won with small margins in 2008 where such a statement COULD throw the state into the other column – either because it turned off some support he got in 2008 or because it mobilized fundies to come out in greater numbers.

I guess that’s a good excuse for you to drop working on women’s rights and the other stuff that’s been pushed back since 2000, amirite? Because obviously if things have gone backward rather than progressing, it’s because you hurt the cause and you should do something else.

I an saying you need to use different methods to achieve your goal if your current methods are unsuccessful.

So what, we primary him? Despite the fact that every single time in the last century a sitting President has been primaried he survived the challenge?

Run a third-party candidate? Not even Teddy Roosevelt at the height of his popularity could win as a third-party candidate.

Sit on our hands and hope for the best (even if the best is a waffling mess like Mittens or T-Paw)? Destroying the village in order to save it wasn’t such a hot idea during Vietnam, and it sure as shootin’ ain’t a good one now.

It depends on your goal. If you goal is to have a Democrat in the White House you can continue to support Obama. That was successful.

If you have a different goal you will need power, since you won’t have the power of the Democratic party. That takes time and money, which we also don’t have. So we will have to fight for the power. To do that, we have to be willing to suffer the consequences of a serious challenge to power. We are not, so we will continue to be weak.

“To do that, we have to be willing to suffer the consequences of a serious challenge to power.”

It’s easy to make that argument in the abstract.

Tell me how those 25% of children in poverty will do under a Republican administration – better or worse?

Will the insanity like the “fetal heartbeat” bill in Ohio or the onerous regulations on abortion in Kansas get more traction with a Republican President who supports those things and a Republican Congress that can try to push it through?

You want to fight a long war when the very people you’re fighting for wouldn’t be able to see it through.

I’m sure the hungry and homeless children are terribly relieved that a Democrat is their president instead of a Republican.

And the weakening of abortion rights under Demcorats is much better than the weakening of abortion rights under Republicans. After all, I could still get an abortion even if a lot of poor women can’t.

Jenn’s right on this one.

I’d rather have de facto support than lip service. Yeah, I know you’d like to hear that from him. I’d like him to beat the snot out of Bohner and McConnell. That would FEEL really good. But it would only hurt his chances.

Republican use hate issues like this to Get Out The Vote. They’ve been doing it since Reagan: abortion, gun control, marriage equality – these things get Haters to the polls and while they are there they vote ‘R’. The more vocally the President comes out on this, the more he is helping Republican GOTV, and the thing will turn on turn-out.

Machiavellian? Not particularly. Just the long game.

Perhaps it’s time to repost the “cut off your nose to spite your face” story…

That whistling noise you heard was the point going right over your head.

The point is that while things aren’t great, they could be so much worse. You’re asking people who’ve already got way too much skin in the game to roll the dice and chance that things will not get irrevocably bad before they get better, and for quite a few of them I suspect that’s a chance they aren’t willing to take.

You want to make that your hill to die on? Be my guest. But don’t expect me to stand up and applaud honor before reason.

Oh dear. SoT, I love you dearly but I think you and JoA have got into more of a fight than either of you really deserves. I sort of agree with you both. And even more with TBogg’s original post. Kum-ba-ya … (Ducks and runs.)

I find it very easy to be mean, and I think this kind of snarky blog, which I enjoy thoroughly, puts me in the way of temptation. My new resolution is to maintain my dignity and principles without personal attacks. Well, usually. But I hope I can keep my senzayuma.

Heh. Just think of it as a mental exercise, a theoretical debate. I know we can’t always do what we want or ought to do.

And yes, I’m asking people to sacrifice now for power at a later time. And I know that won’t happen until we have nothing left to lose.

For those of you invoking LBJ–that was 1964. This is 2011. Wayyy different landscape and set of circumstances. How many here are even old enough to remember the War on Poverty, the Title I programs…? Back then, the radio airwaves were not inundated with ranting lackeys of the Koch brothers and we didn’t have an entire news network devoted to carrying the message of the billionaires. No one ever imagined that massive numbers of people would vote repeatedly against their own financial interests because they lack the experience and information to understand that the very people they are voting into office have bent them over the wheel and have rammed….er… well..you get the picture. It’s all done with sophisticated message-testing. If they don’t outright own reporters, they know how to pressure them into leaning right in all political coverage. It’s not accidental that the phrase “values voters” sprang up simultaneously on multiple national news sources on election night 2004 within minutes of the national media declaring GW Bush the winner. But–it’s just so much easier to bash the hell out of Democrats who aren’t with you 100% of the time.

Well, I don’t DISAGREE with Susan’s belief that moral principles are paramount, and I didn’t disagree with TBogg on his point that the president made a mealy-mouthed statement. I’d like to point out though, a lie or evasiveness in service of righting a great wrong is not the same as a lie or evasiveness in service of screwing people over, since we’re talking morality here.

And I actually think there are things to be learned from the whole discussion here. I would say that primary among them is that anyone’s individual take on this issue is shaped in large part by where they’re coming from. For my part, I know that the quickest path to marriage equality in THIS state is through the court. Any other way for us to get there will take much, much longer, because it will rely on changing something like 70% opposition to at least 51% approval. So it’s not going to happen via referendum, and there’s not enough arm-twisting in the world that’s going to get the senators or reps from this state to support it while it’s at 70% opposition. And since I see the court as the only way through for my friends in this state anytime in the near future, I’m going to be opposed to words or actions that might jeopardize getting us a majority on the court while we have the best opportunity of getting it, and particularly if those words or actions don’t stand to accomplish anything in and of themselves. If I’m immoral for supporting what I see as the best chance for the people I know and care about, then so be it.

When I said I was ducking to run, I was actually heading out the door for 20 minutes of aerobic exercise, honest, and i now have the sweaty T-shirt to prove it. But I’m glad if my little comment helped get us off what was looking like a stalemate.

I frequently called Clinton the best Republican president since Eisenhower. I think it is fair comment to say that Obama frequently acts like an old-fashioned Republican, but when we do that, it’s very important to characterize the current Republicans accurately — as people who would call Reagan a screaming liberal. We really are in terrible times, and confusion over nomenclature does not help.

I’d rather have de facto support than lip service. Yeah, I know you’d like to hear that from him. I’d like him to beat the snot out of Bohner and McConnell. That would FEEL really good. But it would only hurt his chances.

This. The preference some progs have for things that FEEL good (often couched in terms like “fighting for” or “moving the Overton Window” or “using the bully pulpit”) over the far more frustrating, messy, compromise-riden process of actually getting things done–well, that preference is half of the basis for the term “emoprog”.

Then it is up to you and others who insist on supporting on this to show that there is some potential cost.

Agreed. Obama has the States electoral problem in any case, and some sort of exacerbation of those problems by making an unequivocal statement of support for Marriage Equality should be shown by those opposing such an unequivocal statement.

And I’ll say that it’s interesting, to say the least, to watch my potential marriage rights batted back and forth as political fodder verging on 10ther madness in the comments. It simply wouldn’t be tolerated on a “racial” basis, and last I checked there is one race known as “human.”

Not any more than it is up to YOU and others who insist on hearing words spoken which will not have any practical effect to show that there’s NO potential cost.

You’ve insisted that there isn’t, or that the likelihood is so small as to be negligible. I maintain that first of all, you don’t KNOW that, and second of all, all it takes is for one person out of a hundred to be turned off enough by it to either not vote or vote the other way. Then there’s the one fundie in a hundred who might have otherwise sat home who is motivated to show up to vote against the evil supporter of homaseckshuals trying to destroy the holy institution of marriage, and…holy shit, suddenly you’ve got a 2% swing in the vote. Is that enough to make a difference in places like CO, IN, OH, VA, NC? Damn straight it is.

So I’d say the onus should be on those who insist that some empty words are the most important thing to prove that it WON’T hurt in the election, since it’s not like any kind of advance or breakthrough is on the line. It’s a gamble that doesn’t carry any prize if you win it but costs you a whole lot if you don’t.

Excuse me, but I presented actual evidence from polling data. Go look at the polls and the breakdown of who does or does not support same sex marriage. If you have any evidence to the contrary, other than your brother-in-law’s cousin’s cab driver, then YOU need to present it.

True. Frankly, Obama ought to come out in favor of same sex marriage simply because it is the right thing. No one should have rights that are not available to all and no one should be denied rights granted to others.

Somehow, it will be gay people’s fault if Obama loses the ’12 prez race. Not the economy or other bad policies or anything.

Haven’t you got the memo?

Your evidence from the polling data curiously didn’t take into account how many of those supporters were under the age of 30, how many reside in the northeast or west coast, and etc.

Here’s some “actual evidence from the polling data” at to “who does or does not support same sex marriage”:

Support for Legal Same-Sex Marriage Decreases Sharply With Age

Support for legal gay marriage decreases markedly with age, ranging from 70% support among those aged 18 to 34, to 39% support among those 55 and older. More broadly, support is highest among younger women and lowest among older men.

Compared with last year, support for legalizing same-sex marriage increased most among younger, 18- to 34-year-old Americans, and among men under 50.

You can look at it for yourself here.

Unfortunately it does not break down support by region, only by age. But the age breakdown matters, since people over 55 are more than twice as likely to show up to vote as young voters. So you’d probably make a lot of young people really happy with a statement – not that they’d be more likely to show up to vote as a result of it, but they’d love hearing it. But the over 55′s? They’ll show up. They always do.

But it also shows a 69% approval rating among Democrats, the people most likely to vote for Obama, and 59% among Independents, the potentially persuadables. There is also the fact that the 55+ crowd are more likely to be Republicans. Nothing you have presented really refutes my point, though it is a step up from your previously fact free harangues.

I unsubscribed from the Obamabot mailing list long since, so I do not get their memos.

TBoggs, Obama has a fetish about leaving himself room to negotiate.

I find the demand that Obama “kiss the marriage ring” to prove he believes in gay rights a fascinating hyperbole.

Actions are louder than words, and the only complaint of any validity against Obama is, “he isn’t doing it fast enough!!”

But the over 55′s? They’ll show up. They always do.

Which is a good reason why we should all demand vote-by-mail. Here in Oregon you don’t have to “show up”. You fill out your ballet (which arrives in the mail 2 weeks before election time) and mail it in or drop it off. Two weeks!

Those 2 weeks allow plenty of time to talk to/email/text everyone you know and remind them to vote. It also allows time to debunk the last minute crap-blitzes aired on the teevee/radio by the righties.

Republicans hate it….

Excuse me, but the only “harangues” I’ve seen on this thread have come from those who insist that only a statement by the president is good enough. If you need to, read back through the thread, and you’ll see I never accused anyone of bad motives or dishonesty. The same can’t be said for at least 3 of you on the other side.

Again, some people need to learn how to disagree with their allies without striving to be insulting. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you on every detail it doesn’t mean they’re the enemy. It may just be that the facts on the ground where they are lead them to a different conclusion about the best way to go about getting what is desired.

It may just be that the facts on the ground where they are lead them to a different conclusion about the best way to go about getting what is desired.

Right.

And if standing up unequivocally for marriage equality is the sole factor, or even a deciding factor that precludes Obama from re-election, well that’s Obama’s problem from a whole host of other issues now, isn’t it?

The presser today showed he’s making a deal on Medicare/Medicaid. That’s his real electability problem right there. Standing and fighting actually matters, on the marriage equality front as well as all the other “more important” issues, and it’s the “more important” issues that are getting squeakier and squeakier now, aren’t they.

Principles count, and if they don’t then it’s always some kind of transactional consideration and one’s beliefs never matter.

yeeeHaw We was gonna have teh libratarians attack Oblama from the left to kneecap his base an keep em at home on Votin day.

But why bother? Teh left is gonna kneecap its own self.

Nothing confuses libertarians more than non-conformity.

He’s trying to keep the Republicans happy and in the process stains himself and the Democratic party.

Compromise has become the theme of his presidency. Unfortunately, the party he bows and scrapes to is SATAN.

Dems might want to have a look at what happened to their political counterpart in Canada, the Liberal Party. It was crushed to nothing in the last election because it became the party of stands for nothing, bows and scrapes to conservatives. What we now have is a GOP-equivalent party and a left of centre, pro-ordinary worker party squaring off. Canadian liberals have started voting in large numbers for the NDP. It’s best to stand by your convictions, not be a little of this and a little of that, especially when “that” is rotten to the core.

I’m confused. I just came here for the puppies.

DING!

Excuse me, but the only “harangues” I’ve seen on this thread have come from those who insist that only a statement by the president is good enough.

Then what the fuck is this?

Not any more than it is up to YOU and others who insist on hearing words spoken which will not have any practical effect to show that there’s NO potential cost.

You’ve insisted that there isn’t, or that the likelihood is so small as to be negligible. I maintain that first of all, you don’t KNOW that, and second of all, all it takes is for one person out of a hundred to be turned off enough by it to either not vote or vote the other way. Then there’s the one fundie in a hundred who might have otherwise sat home who is motivated to show up to vote against the evil supporter of homaseckshuals trying to destroy the holy institution of marriage, and…holy shit, suddenly you’ve got a 2% swing in the vote. Is that enough to make a difference in places like CO, IN, OH, VA, NC? Damn straight it is.

So I’d say the onus should be on those who insist that some empty words are the most important thing to prove that it WON’T hurt in the election, since it’s not like any kind of advance or breakthrough is on the line. It’s a gamble that doesn’t carry any prize if you win it but costs you a whole lot if you don’t.

I’d say it was a response that:
1) Did not insult you, though it was in response to a very rude post you made DEMANDING that it was on ME to prove something to YOU;
2) Did not impugn your motives or morality;
3) Concisely, while forcefully, laid out the basis for my disagreement with your position.

The fact that you believe this constitutes a “harangue” may be a large part of what’s going on here, as there seems to be more than one person who has commented who can’t seem to grasp the concept that “disagreement” does not automatically equate to stupid, immoral, ill-intentioned, bigoted, or etc etc etc.

I did your 1-3 and would appreciate a response/rebuttal.

A tad thin skinned aren’t we?

1) I did not demand anything. I said that if you were going to tell me I was wrong about something (which you did) that you needed to provide evidence to back that up.
2) I never said you did so and never impugned yours (guilty conscience much?)
3) Again a fact free (no solid data, just what ifs and hypotheticals) rant about how I had to be wrong and Obama could not possibly take any chances of alienating the homophobe vote.

I expect the leader of the Democratic Party to, you know, lead and to be at least moderately progressive. I also would like a President who made his decisions based on what is right, not what is politically expedient. Actually, I would like a president who gave any evidence of having any principles other than compromise is always good and the “middle ground” is always the right answer.

Fine. My response?

I don’t agree with you. Mostly because you have failed to demonstrate why “Obama isn’t saying what I want to hear, even though we’ve made more progress under his term than ever before” is the hill we should all agree to die upon.

I don’t see it. I’ve explained in great detail why I don’t see it. I’ve at least presented a plausible reason why I think it’s ill-advised. On the other side, I’ve heard a lot of “because it’s IMPORTANT to hear him say it.” But no examples of how that will make things better. As I said, it’s a gamble with no prize if he wins it but a potentially disastous downside if he doesn’t. That downside will hurt all of us a lot more than any failure to hear words that aren’t in and of themselves accomplishing anything. And the people who will lose their chance at any kind of equality are stuck in the backwards redneck states. If I wanted to indulge in the type of hyperbole others here have been trafficking in for the past few hours, I would say that throwing any chance for marriage equality for gays and lesbians in red states for possibly the next several decades under the bus in order to assuage others’ desire to prove how pure they are in their principles is a pretty fucking bad trade. I would point out that this isn’t something that liberals on the west coast or northeast may have considered, because state-level action on the issue in the near future isn’t impossible in their states as it is here.

There’s your response. Now, I’m gonna piss off somewhere else to be an immoral, malevolent enemy of gay people and liberals in general there. You know, History’s Greatest Monster, that type of thing. Whoop it up, folks.

Hypothetical question:

If Obama had done exactly what you asked, would you accept it or would it be seen by you as a cynical and transparent ploy?

I ask because it seems that even when he does the “right” thing, the motive is impugned.

Even in Loving, the Supreme Court did not disagree that a state had the right to regulate marriage within its borders through the Tenth Amendment. That’s one of the arguments against DOMA – that the federal government is overreaching into a state’s Tenth Amendment authority.

Pushing for same-sex marriage reform on the Federal level may be in line with Loving‘s rationale in the Fourteenth Amendment (assuming the Court will not default to the rational basis test it uses for sexual orientation cases), but it undermines the argument against DOMA. That’s the trade-off in this scenario.

Funny.

I was quite measured I thought. The electability thing you know, being more about Medicare/Medicaid. That’s prolly the real kicker for electability.

I’m not a single issue voter, and as gay dude who would REALLY appreciate some of that sweet, sweet equality, DOMA/DADT Marriage ain’t at the top o’me list but SocSec and Medicare/Medicaid are.

If you really think the threat of teh ghey unseats Obama, well, I’m here to tell you, PISS OFF. It’s hizzown non-gay policy positions that are gonna do that.

Really, blame me and my tribe if you must. Used to it.

For me, this is just another example of what annoys me about Obama. Yes, I would be happier if Obama came out in direct support for same sex marriage, though I would like to see him actually push it. I have never suggested that he does not really mean what he says, but rather that he will never fight for anything. My problem with this (other than I think it is the right thing to do morally), and it is far from my top issue and does not affect me personally, is it is part of a larger pattern of Obama not showing any sign of having any principles that he is willing to fight for. He has caved on every single issue and only managed half-assed solutions that satisfy no one.

No one blamed you or “your tribe” for anything. That’s a straw man you tossed out as soon as you showed up.

So if you wondered why my response to your “measured” commentary, there’s a good place to start – with your starting assumption that I was attempting to “blame” something on gays and lesbians, which I see you continue to maintain.

Now I really am out of here. Believe what you like.

Good evening everyone! Did I miss anything?

And you don’t address cutting Medicare/Medicaid. That’s no “strawman,” that’s a real issue, and a real electability issue, no matter what you storm off with.

Is there some way you can marginalize that? You know “the states should handle that” kinda thing, ’cause Obama can’t do anything about it?

Good luck with that. Principles matter, whether you like it or not.

Good luck with that. Note that she did not respond to my statement about the lack of evidence for any principle worth fighting for at all.

Did I miss anything?

Nope. Just the usual nonsense that has dominated this site since the time when DLC stooge John Edwards was the “true progressive” hero around here.

Although, I do believe now with Tbogg “fucking the cow,” this site has achieved Peak Progressive.

this site has achieved Peak Progressive

Maybe it was a fluke and we can pretend it never happened. That way we can go back to being the bastard step-children Jane tolerates for the hit-count.

I swear on Shakira’s ass that I don’t even remember what you’re talking about. I just hope the New York Times’ Catholic Correspondent writes some shit…and right quick, also too as well. A little palette cleanser, if you will.

Word.

Wow, you firebaggers are some nasty and persistent motherfuckers.

Death to the fascist Obama that preys on the lives of the people, and all that shit.

2 yer mutha.

Hmmm…

Maybe we could get Obama to invite Susan, Jenn, Kelly, and DrDick to the White House to work this out over a few beers….petesh should probably be there too.

BTW…Jenn’s comment at #50 seemed accurate to me…..( remember that the word “seemed” always means I’m not sure and am open to new info…)

One last comment here…

Like anyone would be
I am flattered by your fascination with me
Like any hot blooded woman
I have simply wanted an object to crave

But you, you’re not allowed
you’re uninvited,
An unfortunate slide

Must be strangely exciting
to watch the stoic squirm
Must be somewhat hard telling
To watch shepard meet shepard

Like any unchartered territory
I must seem greatly intriguing
You speak of my love like
you have experienced one like mine before

I don’t think you unworthy
I need a moment to deliberate

Gaia help me, look at this place. Its gonna take weeks to air it out.

As distasteful as it may appear in SoCal or other incredibly hip points on the map, JennOfArk pretty well nailed it @ 6.

If Obama had read any of the scripts written here, he would be 100% guaranteed to lose Ohio in 2012. The tinpot shithead motherfuckers in the Buckeye are THAT pissed about the scary black man in the White House this far along, they put Kasich and his crew of soulless ratfucks in charge. Obama showing the love for marriage equality in a FUCKING PRESS CONFERENCE fer Gaia’s sake is all that would be needed to scare just about every single voter south of I-70 to vote for the clown car crew, or sit it out. Call it whatever the fuck you like, that is the way it is. Obama gains little for his party, his agenda, to take on a fight that he cannot win everywhere, and would risk throwing away a crucial state to … make you feel better? Its a fucking presser, not a goddamned stone tablet written with fire on a mountaintop.

The fucking idiots in Congress are about to visit unbelievable pain on every single American, just because they can. Just my humble two cents, but I’d rather Obama be beating the fucking tinpot shitheads to a pulp over jobs and the economy right this particular moment, instead of handing the chattering morons more ammo to amp up teh crazee in a fight they will eventually lose anyway.

SusanOfTexas: “So what you’re saying is that Obama is a coward pretending to be against gay marriage to get support, from whom god only knows. It won’t be republicans or democrats. And you’re okay with that, as long as your tribe wins.”

No, Susan, that’s what YOU are saying, and you’ve made it painfully clear that you have said it. Repeatedly.

So wanting a Democratic President to act on principle, rather than expediency, because it is the right thing to do and expecting him to be at least as progressive as Richard Nixon is “Peak Progressive?” I will keep that in mind.

John Edwards is the “DLC stooge” in a field that contains Clinton and Obama? Let’s get real here. While he has plenty of problems, Edwards and Kucinich were the only Democratic candidates to talk explicitly about class issues or economic justice and fairness. Whether he would have actually done anything about those issues if elected is debatable and we will never know, given that he self-destructed rather spectacularly and stupidly. Nonetheless, the positions he campaigned on were far more progressive than those of either Clinton or Obama.

I think Sullivan’s right about this, to be honest. Where the federal executive branch takes the lead, discriminatory positions have been gradually wound down in ways that have a real impact on people’s lives, as opposed to making people feel righteous in failure.

Discrimination against same-sex partnerships for immigration purposes needs to be next on the list, along with DOMA, but those require legislative input.

@hellslittlestangel …..

“Wow, you firebaggers are some nasty and persistent motherfuckers.”

This comment seems more and more accurate by the minute…..

@ DRDick…

It’s clear you are for (to quote GuyFromOhio @103) Obama ” handing the chattering morons more ammo to amp up teh crazee….”

I think we got it…..Anything else you want teach us.?

I’ll happily bring a six-pack. Don’t expect me to lead the singalong, that would probably do more harm than good (they never let me in the choir); but I’ll join in sotto voce.

I am deeply amused, however, that this morning’s reactions seem to be that Obama, to quote Kevin Drum, “grew a pair” yesterday or if you prefer (Halperin) “acted like a dick” — can’t be bothered to search for the links — which sorta suggests that maybe we should turn our fire elsewhere.

He’s DOING it, he’s just not saying so. It’s gradual change, but it is real change, not jaw flapping. Saying so gets more people to the polls against him. I don’t want a Michelle Bachmann presidency, so I understand his calculus.

Obama doesn’t have JFK’s appeal, and LBJ would eat him for lunch. The President just ain’t that guy. He’s trying to hold a centrist line as the first black president. You have to understand, down here in Arkansas, people still go nuts that there’s A BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE, so JennofArk and myself have learned to tread carefully. You probably live in a sane part of the country, and wonder why the guy is so quiet. I know why he’s quiet. I want him to be re-elected, and if principles get the Republican elected President next year, then principles be damned.

Jennifer says it: Is this the hill you want to die on?

Amen.

I am from Georgia, the home of ‘we re-elect dickheads like tom price all the time’. I have many friends wo are otherwise very nice, but cannot get over this gay marriage barrier.

The key difference Susan and others are missing is this: Black equality and gay marriage equality are fundamentally and irretrievably different: opposition to one involves sex and the other does not.

Gay marriage all over the US will be a reality in about 20 years from now. By that time, it would be as acceptable for gays to marry as it is for teenagers to have sex.

Sorry, but we are just gonna have to wait for that.

Americans are incredibly prudish about sex. Imagine if President Carter had come out in support of 16 year olds getting it on. And yet, 30 years later, 16 year olds are getting it on and most parents are calm enough about it to say ‘just use protection’. A movie like ‘juno’ was impossible to imagine in 1976 and was a hit in 2006. But we got to that point without any statements from presidents.

I have a lot of crap to throw at Obama (geithner!) but this ain’t one of them.

I’m not so sure we’re gonna have to wait 20 years. If we can get one more appointment to the court and a case before it, this could all be a done deal in perhaps as little as 5 or 6 years. But without another friendly justice, yeah, 20 years – at least.

What I find so unfathomable about this whole debate here is the insistence that “principles” are better measured in WORDS rather than ACTIONS. I’ve always put it the other way round. And truly, I would be surprised if any of those who expressed such disdain at my lack of “morality” – which apparently is now a word used to substitute for “pragmatism” – found themselves, as children, more enamored of the Show-n-Tell topics in which their classmates had nothing to SHOW but plenty to TELL.

“principles” are better measured in WORDS rather than ACTIONS. I’ve always put it the other way round.

Amen.

Remember, we’re only barely at halftime (or if Obama manages another term-the first quarter). If I read things correctly, Obama’s trying to make structural changes, changes that will have effects generations from now. So what if he says, “What happened in New York was a good thing”? Isn’t that what we want to hear from the President? A Romney Presidency would have DOJ all over that legislation in a, ahem, New York minute.

So, yeah, I’m okay with watching what Obama does. He said he supported a public option, and he may in principle, but we got what we got. The notion, though, that he doesn’t support marriage equality simply because he doesn’t actually say the words in a presser doesn’t mean he doesn’t support it in principle.

To be honest with you, I couldn’t give a fat rats fat behind for what Obama personally thinks about gay marriage. I don’t really care that he is personally opposed to it. As long as he doesn’t actively try to undermine a state from legalizing it, I have the same view on this as abortion rights: don’t do it if you don’t want to but don’t stop others.

This thing is NOT going to get done nationally through a constitutional amendment. To do so would be an abuse of the amendment process. Besides, it is completely illogical: if we can get 3/4 of the states and 2/3rds of Congress to pass it, why the devil can we not get just half of the self-same states to legalize it in their own state?

Look, nearly 40 years after Roe, we are still getting bullshit laws on a state by state basis.

Gay marriage will be a generational change. Obama did well not to potentially burn himself on the American Prudishness to matters of sex.

I don’t think any of us are anticipating – or proposing – that it will get done nationally through an amendment. It seems more likely that it will be a challenge based on the “equal protection of the law” clause of Amendment 14 or the “full faith and credit” clause of Article IV, Section 1. The latter seems to me the likeliest path – a gay couple legally married in, say, New York, moves to Arkansas or Texas and the state or some functionary of the state refuses to recognize the marriage, and the couple sues based on the full faith and credit clause, which says that states have to recognize and honor “the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.” That’s pretty clear-cut, DOMA notwithstanding, because DOMA is an act of Congress and so cannot take precedence over the constitution if the two come into to conflict – and they are direct opposition. At the time DOMA was passed, that wasn’t the case, because no state had yet legalized same-sex marriage.

I’m sure, though, that the Roberts Court as currently composed would cook up some pretzel logic in order to rule that the constitution doesn’t REALLY say what it says there.

But should it go before a friendly court where we have one more justice, I don’t see any question that DOMA would be ruled unconstitutional. The court wouldn’t get into telling Arkansas or Texas that they have to legalize same-sex marriages performed within their state, but they would be forced by law to recognize those performed in other states. There would be a period where same-sex couples had to travel out of state to get married, much as people once flocked to Reno for quickie divorces, but it would be do-able, and pretty quickly the holdout states would recognize that if they had to recognize the marriages, they might as well get the economic benefits of allowing them to be performed in-state.

Just my .02 as to what I see as the quickest, easiest, and most likely path for this to take.

I do understand exactly that folks are going crazy in Arkansas, or my native state of Oklahoma, over the fact that there is a black man in the White House. Do you really think him coming out in favor of same sex marriage is going to make one iota of difference to those people? Nothing Obama says on this issue is going to rile up the Gooper base any more than it already is. Oh, and that “generational change” thing, that is what the folks who really did not want to change anything said about civil rights for blacks.

As to Obama “doing” anything, I have yet to see it (that is in fact my principle critique of him). He went belly up on public option, he caved to the big banks, he capitulated on the stimulus (which was about an order of magnitude too small), has not closed Gitmo, and on down the line. Just what the fuck is it that he has actually fucking done? I voted for the man in the primaries and the the general, knowing he was not really progressive but better than the others, and will probably grit my teeth and do it again next year because the Republicans really are all batshit crazy. Do not ask me to be happy about nice words and empty gestures (though in some areas that would be nice) without measurable results and he has not produced any. Richard Fucking Nixon, whom I cast my first vote against, was more progressive.

Hey DRDick….maybe this old post by TBogg can help you out….

A comment left over at digg regarding Ralph Nader:

“The Democrats really hate Nader because he points out the fact that they are asking those of us on the left to vote for them but they aren’t doing anything for us. Did they end funding for the Republican’s crime spree in Iraq? No. Have they moved for UHC? No. Have they tried to stop corporate crimes? No. Have they tried to reform the tax code to be progressive? No. Have they tried to protect homeowners from predatory lenders? No. Have they defended our constitutional rights? No. Take back the FDA from the corporations? No. The FCC? No.

The Democrats don’t deserve my vote. They aren’t helping the left, why should the left help them?”

Let me see if I can explain it this way:

Every year in Happy Gumdrop Fairy-Tale Land all of the sprites and elves and woodland creatures gather together to pick the Rainbow Sunshine Queen. Everyone is there: the Lollipop Guild, the Star-Twinkle Toddlers, the Sparkly Unicorns, the Cookie Baking Apple-cheeked Grandmothers, the Fluffy Bunny Bund, the Rumbly-Tumbly Pupperoos, the Snowflake Princesses, the Baby Duckies All-In-A-Row, the Laughing Babies, and the Dykes on Bikes. They have a big picnic with cupcakes and gumdrops and pudding pops, stopping only to cast their votes by throwing Magic Wishing Rocks into the Well of Laughter, Comity, and Good Intentions. Afterward they spend the rest of the night dancing and singing and waving glow sticks until dawn when they tumble sleepy-eyed into beds made of the purest and whitest goose down where they dream of angels and clouds of spun sugar.

You don’t live there.

Grow the fuck up.

http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/02/25/your-mumia-sweatshirt-wont-get-you-into-heaven-anymore/

Fuck you and your puerile condescension. I do not expect miracles and have no use for Nader. I do fucking expect the President to actually lead, rather than sit back and let everybody else do the heavy lifting. I also expect him to fight for what he believes in. I do not expect that he will always win, but I do expect him not to quit before he even starts. There is a difference there that you and others apparently cannot or do not wish to see. What I keep hearing from you and the others is, we want Obama to be President, but we don’t want him to do anything that might piss off the Republicans. You might just as well vote for them in that case.

Perhaps you would like to tell Dr. Krugman, Dr. DeLong, and Matt Yglesias to “grow the fuck up” as well? It is in fact you and the other Obama apologists who believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and Easter Bunny. You seem to think that if we all just act nice and do not make any waves the everybody gets unicorns, something you seem to share with the President. One think I have learned in the last almost 60 years is that, unless you are born to privilege (and not always then), nobody just gives you anything. You have to work and fight for what you want and that people who advise patience and talk about “generational change” are too afraid of their own shadows to ever accomplish anything.

In response to DrDick:

Right.

Because technical default by the US has the same exact consequence for the US as not legalizing gay marriage,so the president should fight both battles with equal energy and urgency.

That is not what I, or anyone else here has said. All we have asked, as did TBogg, is that Obama speak out in favor of same sex marriage and equal rights for the LGBT community and make some visible efforts at overturning DADT and DOMA. For me, and I am not gay, economic issues are of much greater importance, but Obama is not fighting for them either. Again, my problem is that Obama NEVER fights for anything. His only principle seems to be that compromise is always good and that the middle ground is always the best way, which is profoundly wrong given the current political environment.

Also the notion that his speaking or even acting in favor of LGBT rights would be a political disaster is debatable at best and likely absurd. Most Americans support it, particularly those Americans most likely to vote for Obama. Acting forcefully on progressive principles is likely to gain as many or more votes than it costs him by motivating the base and the youth vote, which is what won him the last election. Remember “swing voters” do not really swing between parties, they swing between voting and not voting. The key to an Obama victory, and as much as I am disappointed in and mad at him I do want him to win, is to motivate and energize the progressive base like he did in 2008. Timidity and moderation, like we have seen so far, will not do that.

Well, I was responding to your reference to Krugman et al after someone kindly posted tbogg’s own comments about being in a real world. Clearly Krugman had nothing to say about LGBT issues and yet…

As for the president standing up for LGBT – what would you have him do? He is personally against gay marriage. He just is. He said so, loud and clear, during his campaign . So, he is doing the best he can to stay with his consistent position – I am not going to argue for it because I am personally opposed to it, but I am not going to impede it by campaigning against it or throwing roadblocks at it. The only thing he can say without being all weineresque is to contend that the state of New York should only have approved civil unions, not full fledged marriage. Would you have preferred that?

If he comes out and argues for something that he has clearly said he does not believe in personally or policywise (federally mandated acceptance of gay marriage nationally), how would that help anybody except give ammunition to those who want to stop it?

The bully pulpit should not become a suicide announcement.

But if you want to paint him with a broader brush that he compromises on *everything* to the detraction of the progressive cause, you can make a compelling case. In that broader context, he surely has exhibited feet of clay. But just not with this one issue.

Thanks for handling that cynick…..DrPrick seems determined to get the last word here …lets see if shows up again.
You know it’s funny… when Obama first came on the seen, most folks I know were saying thing like ” Well I don’t know that much about him so he’s going to have to earn my trust and respect..I’m not going to just give it to him…he’s a politician after all.”
Of course he never did really earn our trust and respect and we weren’t all that disappointed because we never really trusted him to begin with.
DrPrick evidently did and now is terribly disappointed….He seems to regret his vote and seems to think a McSame/Pain presidency would be no different not realizing we’d have two more Supremes like Alito and Scalia and we’d be at war with Iran with tens of thousands of fresh dead.

That should have read “when Obama first came on the scene”…ack..

Gosh, I sure wish Obama would do something on the issue of gay marriage.

Enough of this pussy-footing around!