May 10, 2012
President Obama’s Moment
From The New York Times:
It has always taken strong national leadership to expand equal rights in this country, and it has long been obvious that marriage rights are no exception. President Obama offered some of that leadership on Wednesday. “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with ABC News that the White House arranged for the purpose of giving Mr. Obama a forum to say just that. With those 10 words, Mr. Obama finally stopped temporizing and “evolving” his position on same-sex marriage and took the moral high ground on what may be the great civil rights struggle of our time. His words will not end the bitter fight over marriage rights, which we fear will continue for years to come. But they were of great symbolic value, and perhaps more. As Mayor Michael Bloomberg noted, no expansion of rights embraced by a president has failed to become the law of the land.
This is a president and a White House that has not always been unwavering in taking positions of principle, including on this issue. Mr. Obama’s statement followed days of unseemly equivocation by the White House after Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. announced his support for same-sex marriage on Sunday. It also came one day after North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage and civil unions, which threatens all unmarried couples, health coverage for their children and domestic violence laws. Still, the contrast was sharp between Mr. Obama and Mitt Romney, who took a hard-line position on Wednesday against same-sex marriage and civil unions with similar rights. He has said he favors a national constitutional amendment enshrining this particular bigotry.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 07:21 AM | Permalink
Comments
Canada legalized same sex marriage in 2005. I guess Canadians are "evolving" faster than Americans.
Posted by: reader | May 10, 2012 10:09:17 AM
Well, not about finding new ways to propel climate change, reader. But with that giant and murderous exception, I agree with you.
I read that 1m came into the coffers of Obama-Biden 2012 yesterday, soon after this announcement, so this is not only a huge thing in its own right, but it may also break the log jam -- meaning, Progressives disappointed enough in the president that they are sitting this election out until it's time to vote. I believe we should look at many things other than how let down we feel that the entire promise, let us say, of Obama-Biden 2008 has not been fulfilled, before deciding it makes too little difference who wins in the fall to get bothered over the election. Moments like this remind us that the next three Supreme Court Justices will probably be named before 2016, by whoever is president, and that the expansion or contraction of civil rights is among other things a presidential matter. The contrast here is stark enough -- is it not? Things that will matter for longer than how cheesed off we may be right now are at stake, as the threat of a Romney presidency grows clearer. Even if all I were doing with my vote was to keep religious wing-nuts off the Supreme Court and elect a man who was aware of the full implications of civil rights, that would be the better choice -- the least angry, least cynical and most forward looking choice. In the plethora of Obama criticism to come, much of it from angry Left-of-center voters, I hope people will remember their vote yet gives them the power to head off the worst outcome, if not to make their wishes come true. Also, whoever doubts the president can reflect and change his mind should be encouraged by yesterday's revelations.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | May 10, 2012 11:07:34 AM
Elatia tells it like it is. Hear hear
Posted by: eli | May 10, 2012 12:57:10 PM
It's no wonder that the Dems treat their own constituents with such obvious disdain. Obama emotes properly, offers absolutely no substantive policy change -- and "progressives" (read, "believing Dems") lap it all up. Eagerly. Abjectly.
By now we know that this is the entirety of Obama's schtick. But why should he change it? The yokels buy it EVERY TIME!!
So we can all look forward to some gallows humor in 2013-14. While Obama and the Dems are gutting Social Security and Medicare, we can watch "progressives" explain how it's really a victory for fairness and the good society. And they'll be quite clear about their definition of "victory" -- anything that supposedly "positions" Dems for a win. Full stop.
Posted by: sglover | May 10, 2012 5:15:02 PM
Abbas once told me he posted only articles which were not media news. Why post this when it is front page media news all over the world? Could the editors of three Q have a hidden agenda? Why the exception to their own rules?
Posted by: WJAbbe | May 10, 2012 6:18:40 PM
sglover: There's nothing quite like creating a deflection of the issue at hand to distract from your basic, fundamental bigotry and your impulse to insult.
Posted by: ray Butlers | May 10, 2012 6:59:08 PM
Well said, Elatia!
Posted by: Ben Schwartz | May 10, 2012 7:09:27 PM
More on Obama's civil rights and human rights record:
http://vimeo.com/26082055
Posted by: Louise Gordon | May 10, 2012 8:24:02 PM
Thank you, eli! Thank you, Ben!
Posted by: Elatia Harris | May 11, 2012 8:25:13 AM
sglover: There's nothing quite like creating a deflection of the issue at hand to distract from your basic, fundamental bigotry and your impulse to insult.
Hilarious. I guess I'm not as smart 'n' sensitive as you, so please explain how mentioning Obama's **actual** timidity and inertia is, somehow, "bigotry". At least tell me whom exactly I'm supposedly bigoted against.
Posted by: sglover | May 11, 2012 10:59:23 AM
Louise Gordon -- thanks for that link.
I guess you & Greenwald must be bigots, too, eh?
Posted by: sglover | May 11, 2012 11:01:49 AM
well sglover, you should simply admit that you're a bigot instead of trying to rationalize it through insults and deflection. Plausible deniabiltiy? I'll give you that. No plausible to me, but no doubt plausible to yourself.
Posted by: raybutlers | May 12, 2012 1:52:39 PM
well sglover, you should simply admit that you're a bigot instead of trying to rationalize it through insults and deflection. Plausible deniabiltiy? I'll give you that. No plausible to me, but no doubt plausible to yourself.
More hilarity. You're so hot to dabble in insults yourself that you DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.
It's a serious question -- exactly how am I supposed to be a bigot? Because as far as I can tell your definition of "bigot" means, anybody who isn't dazzled by Obama's timid gestures and center-right policies. If **that's** bigotry, I guess I'm guilty.
So why don't you clarify? I doubt that you can, really, but I'm curious, now.
Posted by: sglover | May 13, 2012 11:31:37 PM
Post a comment