221 replies to this topic

[Will Carper]

Ogul, apply that argument to other civil rights issues throughout the past and present.

Edited by Will Carper, 11 May 2012 - 06:10 AM.

[Ricardo_C]

But that's the problem, it's not like Obama hasn't been openly in favor of gay rights before this, he'd already done more than enough to earn the enthusiastic support of the gay community. Anyone who would work harder for Obama today than they would have this time last week does not deserve him.

This time last week Obama was, to me, a competent president who would have done much more in his first term had it not been for a comically out-of-touch Congress. I liked him, and preferred him to the alternative, but that was it. Today, to me he's an incredibly courageous leader who's stood by his convictions even if it costs him votes. You're damn right I would work harder for him today than a week ago. My only regret is that I won't be eligible for citizenship till after the election, meaning I'll never get to vote for Obama for president.

[Ogul]

Ogul, apply that argument to other civil rights issues throughout the past and present.

Not all civil rights issues are equal. The right to have your pairing recognized by the state as a "marriage" is one of the least important rights out there, especially if civil unions that offer all the same legal protections is already on the table, and Obama was always in favor of those. Use of the word "marriage" to describe a relationship isn't something the government should be involved in in the first place. Far more important would be rights like the right to serve in the military, something that Obama has not only already endorsed, but already secured for the gay community, or the right to fair treatment in employment or that sort of thing.

I'm not saying gay rights in general are of lesser importance than the rights of other groups, but I am saying that this specific right to marry is not something of vital importance to anyone, nobody is living or dying over it, it's a frills issue, and further that Obama's endorsement of it does not make it so, it's still not something that is likely to become law for years to come. I just think that this is an issue that could have waited until December without making anyone's lives the lesser for it. If this issue in any way reduces the odds of Obama winning in the fall, then things will be far worse for everyone, including gay people, than if he wins, so it's unreasonable for people to push him on this one small issue at a time that is inconvenient for him to do so.

Now, if Obama had the power to actually change the laws, if his announcement made it instantly legal for gay couples to marry all over the US, and therefore allowing people to marry each other six months earlier than if they were able to wait for Christmas, then that would at least be something, perhaps even something worth losing votes over, but he doesn't have that power.

All I'm saying is, if Obama loses reddish-purple states in the fall, and loses the election because of it, I told you so.

This time last week Obama was, to me, a competent president who would have done much more in his first term had it not been for a comically out-of-touch Congress. I liked him, and preferred him to the alternative, but that was it. Today, to me he's an incredibly courageous leader who's stood by his convictions even if it costs him votes. You're damn right I would work harder for him today than a week ago.

I stand by what I said, if you didn't already believe in Obama's courage last week then you don't deserve to benefit from it. I have respect for people who stand by their convictions, like Ron Paul, and Denis Kuccinich, but I prefer when they are pragmatic enough to actually get into a position to turn their convictions into action. I thinkit's worth standing by your convictions in exchange for votes, but only IF what you're buying with that political capital is a prize worthy of the risks.

[Ricardo_C]

I stand by what I said, if you didn't already believe in Obama's courage last week then you don't deserve to benefit from it. I have respect for people who stand by their convictions, like Ron Paul, and Denis Kuccinich, but I prefer when they are pragmatic enough to actually get into a position to turn their convictions into action. I thinkit's worth standing by your convictions in exchange for votes, but only IF what you're buying with that political capital is a prize worthy of the risks.

[Ogul]

Was that confusing? I didn't intend it to be. My point was that while I think that people who place their convictions over pragmatism are more respectable than those who have no convictions at all, I prefer people who have convictions, but weigh them against reality and arrive at the best possible outcome. I mean, if a person wants three apples, but can only possibly acquire two of them, I have more respect for the guy that gets those two apples, and therefore HAS two out of the three apples he wanted, over someone who sticks to his stance that three apples are better than two, and gets no apples at all. I think that Obama has proven on plenty of cases that he is willing to take the more difficult route, IF he feels that this more difficult route offers potential gains that are worthy of the difficulty level. I believe this is admirable. I do not believe it is particularly admirable to choose the most difficult route purely for the challenge of it when that means sacrificing actual gains.

[Will]

My assumption was that Obama came to that decision after seeing your avatar?

No, it wasn't gay enough for him. Biden, however...

[Johnny Henning]

Was that confusing? I didn't intend it to be. My point was that while I think that people who place their convictions over pragmatism are more respectable than those who have no convictions at all, I prefer people who have convictions, but weigh them against reality and arrive at the best possible outcome. I mean, if a person wants three apples, but can only possibly acquire two of them, I have more respect for the guy that gets those two apples, and therefore HAS two out of the three apples he wanted, over someone who sticks to his stance that three apples are better than two, and gets no apples at all. I think that Obama has proven on plenty of cases that he is willing to take the more difficult route, IF he feels that this more difficult route offers potential gains that are worthy of the difficulty level. I believe this is admirable. I do not believe it is particularly admirable to choose the most difficult route purely for the challenge of it when that means sacrificing actual gains.

So you should have convictions, unless those convictions have dire consequences. You should aspire to do what you believe is right, unless it's really, really hard and you have a good chance of failing.

No one ever has a sure idea of what the outcome will be on any course of action they take. It's easy to believe you can guess it, but the criteria you propose above is not based on any merit other than a perceived political gain. A belief that one can set aside certain convictions, compromise or avoid controversy if it is damaging politically.

In this case, I think Obama would've liked to avoid this, but when it came up, and he was challenged to take a position, instead of trying to find an imaginary option that balanced political desires with personal morality, it seems he simply decided to go with what he felt was right.

And it's kinda the President's job not to avoid controversy, because these controversial issues are a large part of why we have a government and elect people to deal with them.

At heart though - the issue of gay marriage is not that crucial to me.

[Ogul]

So you should have convictions, unless those convictions have dire consequences. You should aspire to do what you believe is right, unless it's really, really hard and you have a good chance of failing.

There needs to be a balance, is my point. You should have the conviction to do what is difficult, but not the stubbornness to do what is pointless. You shouldn't give up too early, but neither should you give up too late. While it's cowardice to flee at the first sign of resistance, it's not bravery to charge recklessly against unfavorable odds when a slight delay would give you much better chances for no real cost, that's just stupidity.

In this case, I think Obama would've liked to avoid this, but when it came up, and he was challenged to take a position, instead of trying to find an imaginary option that balanced political desires with personal morality, it seems he simply decided to go with what he felt was right.

I think he probably made the right choice in the immediate situation, I just feel that the situation was unfairly thrust upon him. His supposed "supporters" in the liberal community never should have put him on the spot of either choosing to publicly support gay marriage, or to appear not to by avoiding the issue. They were the ones that screwed this up, not him. They got what they wanted in the short term, but whether it will work out for them in the long term is still in doubt. You have to ask, if their choices are to A: have the President of the United States publicly claim to support gay marriage, without any practical benefits, but this leads to him losing the next election, ushering in at least four more years of presidency under a man who has explicitly pushed for an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment (and potentially with the congressional majorities to achieve it) and would likely be the most anti-gay president in history, or B. wait six months for the President to make such a statement, after he's been reelected and has four more years to promote pro-gay agendas much as he's been doing for the last four, why would they view "A" as worth the risk?

I'm not saying he will lose, I'm just saying, the odds are now worse, and there's no good reason why they should have to be.

And it's kinda the President's job not to avoid controversy, because these controversial issues are a large part of why we have a government and elect people to deal with them.

No. It's the President's job to do what's best for America, and in some cases that means that his highest priority is to make sure that the other guy doesn't steal his job. As I said, if he was taking a stand here for an IMPORTANT issue, something that had a real practical effect on American lives, then it may be worth losing political capital over. I mean, if this was like the civil rights movement in the 60s, if gay people were being prevented from eating at restaurants or voting or anything like that, if they were being prevented from living together, and Presidential action could stop that, then it would totally be worth him upsetting people, but just him saying "I support gay marriage," without actually making gay marriage any more available, and without gay marriage ever being a tier 1 or even tier 2 issue of importance, it's just a waste. Any advantage he does gain from it will be from people who by all rights should have been in the tank for him already, because he's already done more for gay people than pretty much every previous President combined.

[garjones]

Yawn, this is basically everyone should have the same priorities as Ogul. They don't. They don't have the same as me, I live with it.

[Johnny Henning]

Even in the terms of competition, fighting to make sure the "other guy" doesn't win is a loser mentality. What's best for America is standing for what he thinks is right on controversial issues. At the very least, it is an example of his character and conviction. The falsehood here is thinking that he is going to get anything by avoiding the issue. There are a lot of of independent voters who, like us, don't really care about gay marriage the same way the very liberal and gay rights activists do. But we do care that the president speaks his mind and follows through on his beliefs.

As much as I don't like politicians, those who avoid controversy and who try to find a balance on all issues or a "middle way" in every controversy do not actually get elected.

[garjones]

There are a lot of of independent voters who, like us, don't really care about gay marriage the same way the very liberal and gay rights activists do.

The interesting thing is I've found a lot of conservatives don't care. My boss is a good old Texan boy and we had a chat the other day and he said he doesn't give a shit, a la Ron Paul, it's not government business. To quote the 'rent's too damn high' guy, I'll marry a shoe.

I know Todd Gambrel doesn't care and most of the right wing posters here except maybe Stephen G who's an evangelical.

On the other hand for gay people and activists it's really very important. Those votes may have been won before considering the Romney stance but they will be wholeheartedly behind Obama now.

[Johnny Henning]

Is Romney a sociopath?

http://www.newyorker...hy-problem.html

http://seattletimes....prmid=head_main

http://www.sfgate.co.../ED2U1OB4IL.DTL

They haven't come out and said it, yet, but that is the general message of these stories.

[Todd Gross]

Things may not be as dire as predicted:

African-Americans Support Obama’s Same-Sex Marriage Stance

African Americans who oppose gay marriage are reconsidering their beliefs, thanks to Obama’s shift, Allison Samuels reports.

by Allison Samuels | May 11, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

Annie May Johnson grew up next to the tobacco field her parents worked in Lillington, North Carolina. At 75 years old, Johnson long held the belief that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman, no matter the times. That’s what her parents taught her years ago, and it’s what the good Rev. Mosley preached each Sunday morning at Mt. Vernon Baptist Church during her childhood.

Johnson never believed her view on the issue would waver. But that all changed on Wednesday, when President Obama announced publicly that he was in favor of same-sex marriage, a change from his 2008 campaign stand. Saying his beliefs had evolved from his support of civil unions instead of same-sex marriages, Obama sent ripples through the country and caused Annie May Johnson to take a second look at an issue she thought she’d decided on long ago.

“I always saw marriage as a man and a woman being together for a lifetime,’’ says Johnson, on the phone from her North Carolina home. “That’s all I ever saw growing up, and that is all my parents saw in their day. But when Obama said he now was in favor of it, I thought maybe I’ve been too pigheaded about this thing for too long.’’

“He’s smart, that’s why I voted for him,’’ Johnson says. ‘’So why wouldn’t I listen to what he has to say and listen to all of it. The right may not do that, but I do.’’

For years, reports have shown a great divide in the opinions of African Americans on efforts to legalize gay marriage, versus those of other races. A 2008 Pew poll showed that nearly 67 percent of blacks were not in favor of same-sex couples marrying. Those high numbers, especially when compared to the attitudes of other races, helped feed the belief that feelings of homophobia are much more of a problem in African-American communities, where many of the country’s top black ministers use their pulpits to rail against the “homosexual lifestyle.”

One such minister is Atlanta’s Bishop Eddie Long. Long was the black Christian community’s most outspoken voice of the anti-gay movement. In 2004, he famously organized a march of his church members to support an amendment to Georgia’s state constitution that would ban gay marriage.

Atlanta and the black Christian community as a whole were shocked when, in 2010, three civil lawsuits were filed against Bishop Long in Dekalb County court. The charges alleged that Long had used his “spiritual authority’’ to coerce male church members into engaging in sexual acts and relationships for his own personal and sexual gratification. Long settled the lawsuits.

Petersen believes attitudes among blacks will continue to evolve with Obama’s well-publicized support of gay marriage. He also thinks the president’ decision will have little impact on the black vote in November. And while 47 percent of the community may be against same-sex marriage, even more feel disconnected from Mitt Romney and his message, he notes. "Let’s face it, Obama probably won't enact any policy towards this before he's elected. And by next month, some other big topic will be in the news. This won't even be a talking point in November. And even if it is, black people have more to worry about and this isn't it," Petersen says.

“This isn’t a wedge issue for blacks with Obama, no matter how much the media would like it to be,’’ Petersen adds. “At the end of the day, blacks aren’t confused about what candidate is best for them. I think many blacks knew he was leaning this way anyway and weren’t particularly surprised.’’<a name="body_text13" style="visibility: hidden;">

Lamont Jacobs certainly wasn’t. The 67-year-old former truck driver says Obama’s evolution on same-sex marriage mirrors his own slow turn toward totally understanding the issue.

“My grandson is gay and of course me and my wife love him to death, but it was hard to accept at first,’’ says the Long Beach, Calif., native, while getting his hair cut in South Central Los Angeles. “I didn’t understand why he wanted to be with or marry another man. I just didn’t. I told him that wasn’t a real marriage. But over time, my wife and I learned to accept it and be at peace with it. Who are we to deny him happiness? President Obama just came to that same decision, and I respect him for it.’’

[Ogul]

[quote]
Yawn, this is basically everyone should have the same priorities as Ogul. They don't. They don't have the same as me, I live with it.[/quote]

I don't see what that has to do with anything. My point has nothing to do with "everyone should have the same priorities as me." If you're implying that there are people out there who view gay marriage as being higher priority than jobs, or health care, or caring for the poor, then I think those people have some seriously distorted priorities, by any reasonable measure.

[quote]

Even in the terms of competition, fighting to make sure the "other guy" doesn't win is a loser mentality.[/quote]

I'm fine with that, so long as in this case "the other guy" doesn't win. "The other guy" in this case would make a complete mess of our country, he simply must not be allowed the opportunity. If we were talking about two completely fair choices here, if the opponent was someone that we could trust to not leave a wasteland in his wake, then that'd be one thing, but we have no such choice this time around.

[quote]What's best for America is standing for what he thinks is right on controversial issues.[/quote]

That's just foolishness. It's a platitude that makes no sense when intersected with reality.

[quote]The falsehood here is thinking that he is going to get anything by avoiding the issue. There are a lot of of independent voters who, like us, don't really care about gay marriage the same way the very liberal and gay rights activists do. But we do care that the president speaks his mind and follows through on his beliefs.[/quote]

And all of those people should have recognized those traits in Obama years ago and been ready and willing to vote for him already. The only minds that this might change is conservatives who would have been willing to sit this one out because they just didn't like either candidate much, but that are now mobilized to get out and vote against Obama. If voter turnout were mandatory in the US then this would be a non-issue, but we live in a country where turn-out is often more of a factor than the actual public breakdown is.

[quote]
The interesting thing is I've found a lot of conservatives don't care. My boss is a good old Texan boy and we had a chat the other day and he said he doesn't give a shit, a la Ron Paul, it's not government business. To quote the 'rent's too damn high' guy, I'll marry a shoe.[/quote]

Sure, and yet the majority of states, including many battleground states, have cared enough about the issue to pass anti-gay-marriage referendums with majority popular votes. That seems to indicate that they at least have majority opposition to gay marriage within many of those states.

[quote]
On the other hand for gay people and activists it's really very important.[/quote]

But why should it be? Like I said, it's just a word, there is no practical difference between a civil union and a marriage, they get all the same rights either way, and whichever it is, Obama's statements had no impact on actually making them more of a reality than they were last week. I can see why they should care, but not why it should ever be an issue worth potentially losing so much over. On a scale of 1-20, with 10 being something essential to life and 1 being one of those non-binding resolutions they pass in Congress to declare something ridiculous, marriage rights of any kind should never merit more than a "3" or so, from anyone.

[quote]Those votes may have been won before considering the Romney stance but they will be wholeheartedly behind Obama now.[/quote]

They'd better damned well be, he's already bought them ten times over.

[David Meadows]

“I always saw marriage as a man and a woman being together for a lifetime,’’ says Johnson, on the phone from her North Carolina home. “That’s all I ever saw growing up, and that is all my parents saw in their day. But when Obama said he now was in favor of it, I thought maybe I’ve been too pigheaded about this thing for too long.’’

“He’s smart, that’s why I voted for him,’’ Johnson says. ‘’So why wouldn’t I listen to what he has to say and listen to all of it. The right may not do that, but I do.’’


That's amazing.

“I always saw marriage as a man and a woman being together for a lifetime,’’ says Johnson, on the phone from her North Carolina home. “That’s all I ever saw growing up, and that is all my parents saw in their day. But when Obama said he now was in favor of it, I thought maybe I’ve been too pigheaded about this thing for too long.’’

“He’s smart, that’s why I voted for him,’’ Johnson says. ‘’So why wouldn’t I listen to what he has to say and listen to all of it. The right may not do that, but I do.’’


That's amazing.

I mean, logical really, because you shouldn't vote for a man unless you thought he was smart, and if he's smart you will consider what he says...

But still amazing.

[Johnny Henning]

While I'm sure a few might, that is a poor and manipulated story, don't you think? A few people changed their minds about gay marriage, so the implication is what exactly? Suddenly everyone is starting to be more open-minded on the topic?

Look at the title of the column and its sub-heading "African Americans who oppose gay marriage are reconsidering their beliefs, thanks to Obama’s shift, Allison Samuels reports." Really, the article only makes the case for a few people changing their views. The obvious intent of the article is to make you think that a whole lot of African Americans are changing their minds when the actual content of the article only cites a few actual instances and basically states the best possible case for Obama and implies that it is a broad reality.

It's just the type of reporting that drives me crazy.

[garjones]

I don't see what that has to do with anything. My point has nothing to do with "everyone should have the same priorities as me." If you're implying that there are people out there who view gay marriage as being higher priority than jobs, or health care, or caring for the poor, then I think those people have some seriously distorted priorities, by any reasonable measure.

Which means they don't have the same priorities as you. Thanks for demonstrating it well for me.

[Christian U]

While I'm sure a few might, that is a poor and manipulated story, don't you think? A few people changed their minds about gay marriage, so the implication is what exactly? Suddenly everyone is starting to be more open-minded on the topic?

Look at the title of the column and its sub-heading "African Americans who oppose gay marriage are reconsidering their beliefs, thanks to Obama’s shift, Allison Samuels reports." Really, the article only makes the case for a few people changing their views. The obvious intent of the article is to make you think that a whole lot of African Americans are changing their minds when the actual content of the article only cites a few actual instances and basically states the best possible case for Obama and implies that it is a broad reality.

It's just the type of reporting that drives me crazy.

Either way, if Obama's pronouncement changes a few people's mind, that's a great thing.

[Johnny Henning]

Which means they don't have the same priorities as you. Thanks for demonstrating it well for me.

It is strange. His argument seems to state that there are so many people who oppose gay marriage to such an extent and make it a single-minded priority that it can only hurt Obama, but doesn't think enough people support same-sex marriage to any extent that will help.

Either way, if Obama's pronouncement changes a few people's mind, that's a great thing.

But bad reporting implying a seismic shift with no evidence for it is far worse than Obama changing a few minds. Bad reporting and media manipulation is at the heart of nearly every problem we face. We can't find solutions because everyone has a skewed perception and incomplete conception of the problems.

[Jim Ohara]

While I'm sure a few might, that is a poor and manipulated story, don't you think? A few people changed their minds about gay marriage, so the implication is what exactly? Suddenly everyone is starting to be more open-minded on the topic?

Do you want them to interview everyone in the country?

That's amazing.

A leader actually leading instead of pandering. It's rare but it's great to see when it happens.