shirtlifterbear: (Default)
[personal profile] shirtlifterbear
One out of every nine US citizens now lives in a state or district where they can legally wed a same-sex partner because the state Senate of New York just voted 33-29 for them to be able to do so.

That's 33 million people who now have equal civil rights.

33 State Senators, including Republicans, voted to give our rights to us when the President, IN NEW YORK LAST NIGHT for a GAY fundraiser, still opposes gay marriage.

You know, our Democratic President, the one whose own parents could not have married 50 years ago because interracial marriages were once illegal, the one who talks about hope and change, that guy?

The one who did NOTHING to help this happen tonight.

I cannot wait until his daughters grow up and ask him why he was a bigot back when gay marriages weren't just standard like they soon will be.


Maddow points out rightly, "President Obama is against what just happened."

Hooray New York!

Date: 2011-06-25 03:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Just in time for Pride this weekend!

Date: 2011-06-25 03:22 am (UTC)

Date: 2011-06-25 03:19 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Feel that momentum building!

Yep. Obama did nothing to help the cause of gay marriage and as little as possible on DOMA and DADT. He also won't even acknowledge that the GOP's war on women even exists. Obama, the ultimate fauxgressive.

Date: 2011-06-25 03:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I keep coming back to my service as a State Delegate for Hillary Clinton.

She ordered the State Department to do everything they could to recognize and support same-sex relationships, up to and including relocation and travel expenses for partners just like spouses get.

In so many ways, I think it would have been better.

Date: 2011-06-25 03:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
She would have been significantly better, and we would all have been better off. I keep hoping that all of her "not running again" comments are not true.

Date: 2011-06-25 03:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
From your keyboard to the Gods' ears.

I miss you!

Date: 2011-06-25 03:30 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I miss you too. I'm on yahoo if you care to break your chat ban. (Of course, I'm set to invisible because of internet street harassment.)
Edited Date: 2011-06-25 03:32 am (UTC)

Date: 2011-06-25 03:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Absolutely. Also from her time at the White House, she knows (and said so back then) that the far right are a bunch of psychos who you can't compromise with - I understand why Obama wants to compromise and get even his enemies to like him and work with him. That fits both how politics is played in illinois and with his experience as a black man in the US, but it doesn't work.

I voted for Obama, but I think either Edwards or Clinton would have made a better president. OTOH, I'm not certain that Clinton would have been elected (especially given how much the press hated her, and how much more acceptable openly sexist comments are than openly racist ones).

Date: 2011-06-25 02:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I wouldn't have voted for Clinton. Going back to 1980 we had 28 consecutive years of Bush/Clinton/Bush in the top 2 spots in the nation. That's not healthy for us as a country and I was certainly burned out. The Clintons are loved, but carry too much baggage at this point. I too have been disappointed with Obama, but we needed something - ANYTHING - new.

Date: 2011-06-25 03:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
So if Clinton had won the nomination, you would have voted for McCain/Palin?

Date: 2011-06-25 05:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I didn't say that, so don't put words in my mouth.

Date: 2011-06-25 06:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Moot point, since she didn't win the nomination.

I'll have to agree with one thing I don't want to see:

No Jeb Bush in the White House.

Date: 2011-06-25 08:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Bite your tongue?

Date: 2011-06-25 08:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Sorry. Poor phrasing--it was meant as a question, not an accusation.

NY Daily News article

Date: 2011-06-25 03:25 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I love that the main image in this article is from the celebration tonight at Stonewall.

Edited for HTML fail.

Edited Date: 2011-06-25 03:26 am (UTC)

Re: NY Daily News article

Date: 2011-06-25 06:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
The first stones thrown at Stonewall just landed!

Re: NY Daily News article

Date: 2011-06-25 08:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
LJ needs a "like" button. :)

Date: 2011-06-25 03:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
If the courts in California do the right thing it's going to be one in every five. We can only hope.

Date: 2011-06-25 03:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
If the CA Supreme Court finds that Protect Marriage doesn't have the standing to appeal, then the trial court verdict stands, right?

Date: 2011-06-25 06:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Yes, it will only apply to California if they have no standing to appeal.

If they do, it can and will go all the way to the US Supreme Court.

And right now, as the Court is composed, we should win 5-4 because Justice Kennedy is generally on the correct side of this issue. (cf. Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v Texas, both of which he wrote.)

So it's a tough call: take CA and run, or roll the dice for a chance at the whole enchilada.

Date: 2011-06-25 08:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
It is a tough call. It also has precedent implications. If the CA Supreme Court rules that Protect Marriage does have standing, it paves the way for other groups with questionable standing to get involved in this kind of litigation and could completely redefine what constitutes standing to sue.

If it becomes a CA-only ruling with no appellate action beyond ruling that Protect Marriage has no standing to appeal, it becomes law for the jurisdiction, but not really legal precedent for future cases (though that won't stop it from being used for informational purposes.)

It's also a really, really good case to go to the Supreme Court because 1) Vaughn did a KICK ASS job with the Findings of Fact and 2) as Rachael Maddow pointed out, the way he wrote the decision is practically a love letter to Justice Kennedy.

Date: 2011-06-25 08:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
You are so right about the love letter aspect.

"Hey, Justice Kennedy, I'm quoting YOU, and using YOUR DECISIONS to make mine! Will you be my Valentine?"

Date: 2011-06-25 08:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Pretty much!

Date: 2011-06-25 03:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]

Date: 2011-06-25 06:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]


Date: 2011-06-25 05:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I was (and, really, still am) a die-hard Hilary boy. I accepted Obama's win in the primary and general elections, because my only other choices would have been not voting (not an option) and Vice President Palin (oh ***SO*** not an option). He's been dragging his feet on LGBT issues. I hate that, like I'd hate fire on my testicles. My only possible thought on that would be that he's playing it that way because, if he comes out openly for same-sex marriage, he's going to lose a LOT of votes in the 2012 elections. I figure sometime late in the first year or early in the second year, he'll start pushing forward on SSM.

That's my hope, anyway. We'll see how that plays out.

Date: 2011-06-25 06:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
When he's re-elected, I figure that he'll convert when he has nothing to lose.

If he isn't re-elected, I will curse his name forever for blowing the one chance we've had EVER to get our civil rights.

Cowardice is not leadership.
(deleted comment)

Date: 2011-06-25 06:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
The latest US polling, which the President reads religiously, show that a MAJORITY of Americans now support gay marriage, a number that rises with every poll. If he truly wasn't a bigot, and politically savvy, he would be out in front on this issue like Governor Cuomo.

I believe that he doesn't believe in gay marriage and gay civil rights.

And that's bigotry.

Sad but true.

That being said, LBJ was a ripsnorting old bigot from Texas who signed the Civil Rights Act because it was TIME. I fully expect a miraculous change of heart during President Obama's second term.

But it won't be real. Being for gay civil rights will simply be the politically savvy move by that point.

He's trying to compromise with a Right that will not ever vote for him, or with him, on anything. They've changed their votes on bills they previously supported SOLELY because he came on board.

Yes, he's done some pro-gay things, but the terms "grudging" and "late" and "bare minimum" are used appropriately in this context.

He's not on our side, he's being dragged in our direction by the courts, by the polls, and by what's fair. He looked in our eyes in 2008, promised us his love, took our money, and then he took us for granted.

The NY victory is in spite of his statements from the NIGHT before the vote, not because of them. Men of conscience voted for our civil rights, Democrats and Republicans, men that had voted against our rights before, because it was time.

It's time, President Obama. Grow a pair, we'd sure love that.

You don't have to love us, we know better, but you have to help us.

It's what's right.

Date: 2011-06-25 11:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Our presidential electoral system, for good or ill, does not work work on the basis of majority popular opinion though. There are a certain number of states which can be near-guaranteed to vote for a particular party, some states which can swing between parties, and among those, a few of them have the population numbers that can determine the election all on their own.

California is one such state, and there are a lot of demographics down their with very strong opinions on gay marriage, both for and against. Further, while the outcome of the Proposition 8 overturn process sides with gay marriage (that outcome was inevitable after all regardless of what popular opinion was) the dust is still settling from it, and there are a lot of hot and fickle tempered voters there.

Admittedly, some of the people who voted for Obama are bigoted against gay people, but I do not believe that they voted for him on that basis. However, they might not vote for him on the basis of their bigotry if he breaths too strong a word to inflame them.

On a more personal note, I feel like I should say that it hurts to see you this angry, especially in light of happy news like what just happened in New York. Obama is not ideal, no one ever said he was, but I see people out in the world who are so much worse about this kind of bigotry. Like the firebrand pastors and officials in Uganda, or the government Culture Police in Iran. That is undisguised, institutionalized, murderous hateful bigotry. Those are the kinds of people who make me feel like taking up arms and bludgeoning them across the head with a large dense object. Obama seems pretty reasonable compared to those monsters.

Date: 2011-06-26 12:00 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Obama's stance on gay marriage is QUOTED by those monsters as support.

(deleted comment)

Date: 2011-06-26 12:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
He could be so much better than he is.

And we all know it.

But when NOM quotes him in their Hate Mail against gay marriage?

(deleted comment)

Date: 2011-06-26 01:01 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Being the lesser of two evils doesn't make him good, and it doesn't make up for broken campaign promises or the foot-dragging combined with condescending-finger-wagging at progressives who complain that he has done.

Date: 2011-06-26 06:01 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Perfectly said.


shirtlifterbear: (Default)

July 2011

10 11 1213141516
1718192021 2223
24 252627282930

Style Credit

Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 02:38 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags