START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
Why Obama's stance on gay marriage matters
2 years ago

 

I would have put this in the other thread, but I don't think that has anything to do with same sex marriage. Just election BS.

 

I hope these comments and the further op-ed, can put some context to just how historically significant this issue is. Obama should be praised for this.

 

This is from the comments section of Glenn Greenwald's blog. 

 

---------------------

 

I’m generally no fan of Obama, and many of the reasons why are reported regularly in Glenn’s blog. . . .

 

 

On this issue, Obama’s statement today will be remembered 20 years from now, while his motives, and the North Carolina vote yesterday, and Biden’s carefully calibrated statement last week, and Obama’s previous dithering on this issue, will be long forgotten. A sitting President of the United States is willing, for the first time, to personally back basic civil rights for people who love others of the same sex. That is an action. It’s mostly symbolic, sure, but it will mean a whole lot to a whole lot of people.

 

 

I’m old enough to remember eight years of Ronald Reagan not once mentioning the AIDS pandemic while it raged. Any queer or queer ally who lived through that era will instantly recognize today’s significance. That was less than 25 years ago. To get from there to this is remarkable.

 

 

No, today’s statement doesn’t get any legislation passed (at least, not directly), and the states’ rights hedge is a copout. But the important takeaway is that marriage equality opponents, and homophobes in general, can no longer dismiss gay civil rights as a fringe concern, and the notion that we can be separated from the fabric of American life and be shunned, buried, and forgotten is officially dead.

 

 

Eventually, marriage equality and all those other civil and social rights straight people take for granted will become the law of the land and the norm for everyone. Today helps get us there. That’s worth celebrating no matter how many odious other things Obama’s done.

 

----

 

Here is a link to 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/10/obama-historic-affirmation-same-sex-marriage

 

 

---

 

How long do we have to villify those that are "different" (even when they are not?)

2 years ago

 

 

"Obama should be praised for this."

2 years ago

Good for Obama. It's past time it was done, but he's just increased the chance he'll lose the election.

 

This writer guy is off the mark if he thinks Biden carefully planned it.

2 years ago

I call boloney on claim on Reagan not talking about AIDS. There are several speeches on it. More importantly both
oth his Surgeon Generals stated AIDS as priority and money talks, funding doubled each year from 1983-1988

2 years ago

Government Spending on HIV/AIDS
Fiscal Year $ Millions % growth
1982             8                 N/A
1983             44          450.00
1984            103        134.09
1985           205           99.03
1986           508         147.80
1987          922          81.50
1988        1,615          75.16
1989        2,322         43.78
Source: Congressional Research Service

 

"the 40th president spoke of AIDS no later than September 17, 1985. Responding to a question on AIDS research, the president said:

[I]ncluding what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS in addition to what I'm sure other medical groups are doing. And we have $100 million in the budget this year; it'll be 126 million next year. So, this is a top priority with us. Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer.

"Message to the Congress on America's Agenda for the Future," a document President Reagan transmitted to Congress in connection with his February 6, 1986, State of the Union address, included this specific passage that mentions the word "AIDS" five times:

We will continue, as a high priority, the fight against Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ( AIDS ). An unprecedented research effort is underway to deal with this major epidemic public health threat. The number of AIDS cases is expected to increase. While there are hopes for drugs and vaccines against AIDS, none is immediately at hand. Consequently, efforts should focus on prevention, to inform and to lower risks of further transmission of the AIDS virus. To this end, I am asking the Surgeon General to prepare a report to the American people on AIDS."

 

http://igfculturewatch.com/2003/12/03/the-truth-about-reagan-and-aids/

2 years ago

The article also states

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/10/obama-historic-affirmation-same-sex-marriage

 

 

The writer Edmund White yesterday recalled:

"As a man in his 70s, I grew up in an era when homosexuality was still an offense in some states punishable by death."

 

 

 

Hmm, he must be in his two hundred and seventies.  While homosexuality was still a criminal act largely unprosecuted in states to the 1960s, it was no longer a capital crime since the colonial era.

 

What kind of an un-thoughtful, nonsensical article is this???

 

2 years ago

Chile, I have to say this article is spot on.  Twenty years from now the why, when and how of this statement will not matter.  It will only matter that it was said.

 

Good to see you, you've been missed...

 

 

2 years ago

Obamas speech was uplifting (except for the my troops gaffe), perhaps as timeless as you say, and certainly brave for Obama.

However the article linked above is crap

2 years ago

I am pretty much basing my on spot comment with regard to twenty years from now all that will be remembered is that he endorsed gay marriage.  Not why.

2 years ago

Thanks Suzanne. It is spot on.

 

I agree that there may be some factual inaccuracies, but the overall message that the gay community deserves equal rights is long over due.

 

2 years ago

Agreed.
Obamas speech was good and brave.
The above article, the opposite.

2 years ago

Instead of racking up "firsts" he should have just kept the transparency promise.

 

That would have brought people together instead of divide even more, like with what he did by announcing his support of gay marriage.

 

I think he is worried more about getting as much into history books as he can instead of working for the people to fix this countries problems...

 

 

2 years ago

He was not going to be transparent. The modern presidency is inherently not transparent.

 

But even an effort at transparency would not have brought the country together.

 

Do we really need to dig into the archives to January 2009 to see whether right-wingers were willing to give Obama a chance if only he was "transparent"?

 

Right-wingers were in the streets screaming the socialism, Stalin, Kenyan, muslim, etc. crap before Obama did anything one way or the other about transparency.

 

2 years ago

But even an effort at transparency would not have brought the country together.

 

More so than his declaration of support for gay marriage...

2 years ago

"More so than his declaration of support for gay marriage..."--Buck

 

 

Neither is going to bring the country together. The country is divided and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

 

Presidential candidates will say they want to bring it together and they may mean it, but it will not happen.

2 years ago

Well, I disagree.

 

I think an honest effort towards transparency would have united more than divided.

 

I think his statement supporting gay marriage has only increased and strengthened the divide.

 

That is my opinion, none of which can be proven and I know that...

2 years ago

Buck, how does supporting gay marriage strengthen the divide?

 

He should have acquiesced to those opposed to gay marriage in the name of unity?

 

I think the people who are highly polarized by Obama are the ones who claimed he's a "socialist, Muslim, etc." from day one. I doubt his thoughts about gay marriage would matter much to them one way or the other.

 

 

2 years ago

Don't you get it, Bryan?

 

Obama is dividing us by making the homophobes feel bad?

 

The homophobes, of course, aren't dividing us by insisting the LGBT communitystays as second-class citizens.

 

Poor homophobes, we need to reach out to them by meeting their expectations that we keep discriminating.

 

 

2 years ago

Of course, Kevin, if no one made a fuss about any intolerance it would create much less waves.

2 years ago

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a real divider, too.

 

He should have shut up and quit dividing the country, and then Obama would be where he belongs instead of the White House.

2 years ago

Heidi (Noley Thornton) and Grandfather (Jason Robards) appear to be living on different planes. One's all smiles and the other's a Grumpy Gus!

 

Snow, flowers, and a little shepherd boy. That's the kind of nice Bavarian imagery Disney's "Heidi" goes for.

 

 

2 years ago

Doubling down now on DOMA.


What he's doing is dividing his own party, so I have no problem with that.

By the way, many African American preachers are upset and bristle at the analogy between the movements



This post was modified from its original form on 14 May, 22:55
2 years ago

Buck, how does supporting gay marriage strengthen the divide?

 

It makes people posture up which leads ot party line voting.

 

I do not think the gay marriage issue comes close to what MLK dealt with and racism in general against black people that we have struggled through.

 

What do gay people really want?

 

Do they want all the bennies that come with marriage or do they want to force others to accept their union as "marriage?" As in what most people consider a traditional marriage of man and woman.

 

What is wrong with all the same bennies and it is called a civil union?

 

Is this all over a term..?

 

 

 

2 years ago

The law calls it marriage.

 

"married filing jointly"....etc.

 

IF we wanted to rewrite all the laws to make civil unions the legal term and marriage up to religion it would be fine.

 

But you never cease to amaze. Being against gay marriage is OK, but being for it increased party line voting.  You constantly find new ways to prove how useless you really are.

2 years ago

Being against gay marriage is OK,

 

Well, I understand some people do not agree with it and think the legal term of marriage should be between a man and woman.

 

but being for it increased party line voting.  You constantly find new ways to prove how useless you really are.

 

What I said was by Obama saying he supports it he will have made people posture. My opinion was his statement will divide more than bring together.

 

I have nothing against gay people or gay people marrying. I simply see the other sides point and if they can keep voting it down that is there perogative.

 

I don't equate this struggle to anything like black people had to go through for their civil rights. Because gays can have civil unions in a number of states, they just want the term "marriage" to include them in all states.

 

I say just allow civil unions in all states and that should be cas closed but we all know that will not be good enough.

 

What's the matter?

 

You still angry about the Maddow thing..?

2 years ago

Constantly find new ways ...(of being) useless.


With a recommendation like that, Buck, have you considered a career in government service??!

2 years ago

With a recommendation like that, Buck, have you considered a career in government service??!

 

I have!

 

Unfortunatley, since my glowing review of awesome uselessness from Chile, I have been deemed overqualified.

 

I would be so useless I would make all the other previsouly useless people seem like they were actually motivated and talented...



This post was modified from its original form on 15 May, 13:22
2 years ago

Still missing it.


Sad.

2 years ago

what maddow thing?

2 years ago

Oh. When she shows the Boston Globe article that states she is 1/32 cherokee, that isn't documentation?

 

yes. I realize that they issued a retraction.

 

But none of that changes how you feel its OK for "your side" to make incindiary comments about gay marriage to divide the vote, but somehow, its not when someone supports gay marriage.

 

Got it.

 

Yes. Useless is apt.

 

 

 

2 years ago

Oh. When she shows the Boston Globe article that states she is 1/32 cherokee, that isn't documentation?

 

No, a Boston Globe article isn't documentation. But I will remember that quote forever LOL! Documentation to prove something like Warren's claim is a marriage license, or a birth certificate etc...

 

LOL!

 

You really did try to defend it. That's awesome.

 

But none of that changes how you feel its OK for "your side" to make incindiary comments about gay marriage

 

That is not my side and I don't condone incindiary statements about it.

 

You are now making things up.

 

I like how YOU called me useless.

 

You don't even care about accuracy or honesty, you are just like christian, you just care about sensationalizing one side of the story to create tension.

 

If you cared about honesty you would go back into the 1/32 thread and tell us all how you were wrong.

 

But I highly doubt that will happen...

2 years ago

Now in your world, citing newspapers is unallowable? LOL!

 

Brilliant.

 

Yes, you are a hypocrite. Its perfectly OK to "divide the nation" with issues like gay marriage when its the side that you support. Clear as day Buck.

 

Yep. Useless.

 

 

2 years ago

Now in your world, citing newspapers is unallowable? LOL!

 

You said she showed documentation.

 

She did not. She quoted the Boston globe who had it wrong. I had already told you that the documentation they reported on was proven fales yet you still claimed Maddow showed it.

 

What was it? "Suck it boys?"

 

And you still call me useless.

 

 

Its perfectly OK to "divide the nation" with issues like gay marriage when its the side that you support. Clear as day Buck.

 

I never said that.

 

I don't support any side. And if I did throw my support one way or another I would be on the side of the gay community.

 

If I had to choose anyway.

 

You are just sad, man...

 

 

2 years ago

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.