Gay advocates have a proposition for Obama

With more states enacting same-sex marriage laws, pressure is growing on President Obama to moderate his stance against gay marriage.

Advocates are urging him to appoint a gay man or woman to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David H. Souter. Even if Obama does not name a gay justice, senators are likely to question the nominee about the hot-button issue during confirmation hearings, propelling it to the top of the political agenda this summer.

Two gay women are among the candidates being considered, according to the New York Times: Kathleen M. Sullivan and Pamela S. Karlan, both of Stanford Law School.

Already, Christian groups are lobbying against such a selection by organizing protests in Washington, where the District of Columbia City Council recently voted to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ticket17-2009may17,0,724499.story


Dear Christian groups, your on the wrong side of history and the legal structure for your bigotry is receding.

and stop Don't Ask Don't Tell now.

There's no excuse for government-sanctioned workplace discrimination to be allowed to go on an hour longer in the year 2009.

This he can do now by telling congress to get its ass in gear.

There's not one good reason this is being delayed.

It's time for Obama to enter the 21st century.

that was recently leaked to the press. :(

I haven't heard why they are out of consideration, but apparently they are. Maybe Obama thinks "God is still in the mix" or something? :shrug:

It looks good that he'll nominate someone with a liberal legal history. But I wouldn't expect anything more than this.

...Anything not officially announced is speculation, and probably wrong. I don't get why people still buy what the media is peddling even when it's contradictory on the face of it.

before he "evolved."

I hate that this issue is so divisive and this nation is so bigoted, and that our politicians are kowtowing in masses to the worst in people.

I hate seeing Sarah Palin on television defending Miss California saying Obama and Hillary agree with her on gay marriage, and knowing she's right. This shouldn't be happening.

We can't have half equality or partial equality, we need full equality.

I don't know if he'll put a gay person on the Supreme Court, but either way I'm still disappointed in his gay marriage position.

I mean, would you call the Ku Klux Klan a Christian group just because they burn crosses?

It's equally ridiculous to describe any group that hides behind religion to promote bigotry and hatred as "Christian."

"Stop Using Jesus As An Excuse To Be A Narrow-Minded Bigoted Asshole".

It is up to those who identify as Christian to make it clear that such a label is not accurate enough. The only way for those outside your faith to know the difference is if they are shown that difference.
I note that each critique of religionists here on DU is met with a post that announces that we are not all like that. Well. I just wonder if any of those folks ever get up and tell Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson that tib bit of information. Don't tell me you are not like Fred. Tell Fred. Please.
A group that calls itself Christian and is based in Christian churchs is not Christian? Sorry, but it is. Are all Christians like that? Nope. But do I know that because of the actions of those who are not? Also nope.
By their fruits will you know them. I'm not making that up. Someone else did.

In this case, I was actually criticizing the media for their poor use of language. The phrase "Christian groups" without any modifiers (like "conservative" or even "some") makes it seem that all Christians are against gay Supreme Court justices.

That's as false and misleading as if you wrote that "Jewish groups strongly support Netanyahu" based solely on the statements of AIPAC and the Republican Jewish Coalition. It's either inexcusable sloppiness or a deliberate propaganda technique, and in either case the reporter ought to be called out on it.