"Obama hints he’ll come out for gay marriage in second term"

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:sarcasm:


What a fierce advocate. :eyes:

This is fairly lame and insufficient.

Nonetheless, we need to make sure he keeps his promise...in his second term.

PBO would come out in favor during a second term, because he would fear that coming out during a first term would guarantee that he would not get a second term, and a lot of the progress that he has made would be not continue. PBO is methodical and he never, ever tips his hand. For all of those who will call him a coward for not coming out in favor right now, you may be just to say so. However, it's the end result that counts. And PBO is playing the political gain to win the political war, not battles.

Matters of human rights should always take second place to political ambition

Was that deliberate or did you really, actually miss it? Either way, well played!

I can imagine how difficult it would be not to grasp the concept that Obama is helping to ensure progress on equal rights by not giving his opponents something to galvanize their base over. The concept that such rights can be won quietly with less resistance would otherwise be something that anyone marginally adept at following politics could not help but ponder.

I'm very, very impressed with how you ducked that one so it could sail clean over your head.

Kudos.

:)

is that the political problems to date with advocating for marriage equality is not the galvanizing of the other side, it's that our side has been extremely slow on the uptake in learnig how to frame it properly.

It's a very winnable issue. We just need politicians that know how to play the game properly.

that, until now, has not been made and brought to my attention as you have done.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid we are not factoring in the immense power and resources of the corporate noise machine. They would love nothing more than to 'make an issue' of the 'anti-moral-family movement' (as if people haven't fucked that up enough by now). Doing so would provide not only a perfect smoke-screen for Republicans to act even more despotically, it would also tie up any of Obama's other efforts.

As much as I agree that this could and should be properly framed, we are up against something enormously powerful that wouldn't hesitate to use this against us. And make no mistake; they can and will. I could explain the many ways they could go about it, and I already realize I might wind up doing so, but I hope you can recognize how these forces work enough to figure that part out.


What I'd like to know is this; Just how could this be framed, and how could the 'game be played', properly enough to circumnavigate the RW machine?

If you really are here for discussion, then I'd be happy to toss ideas back and forth. I'm a fairly good problem-solver myself, and I understand the dynamics. Perhaps if we came up with and shot down enough approaches and ideas, we might emerge with something realistic and practical enough to work.

Thing is, Obama is a chess player, for real. He also has a better understanding of the political topography than I think either of us do. For the moment, I'm pretty sure he's done the exercise and arrived where he has for a reason.

amazing.

Proof that we have multiple universes, even here on DU.

What's that definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

:) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/

Wut? We're not meditating?

Wrong class, I guess.

:D

almost ready to maybe perhaps sort of jettison the homophobia!

And this doesn't even rise to THAT level... lol

We are going to need to push this through state by state. Killer way to have to do this. It should not be this way.

IOW, WE are going to have to push this through and it will not be pretty. We start demanding today.

http://www.kansasequalitycoalition.org/viewevent.php?e=3769&c=0 TODAY we demand.

n/t

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Even his most ardent supporters didn't expect perfection. I'm not that ardent, but given his record, and the fact that the PTB doesn't give a damn, I have reason to believe we'll see very large gains in the equality fight in 2013. I know we want it now, but he's moving the ball down the field carefully. I don't want him to throw the game with a Hail-Mary now. Neither do you.

whenever some of us actually do "hold his feet to the fire" and "keep up the fight", we're told to STFU here on DU.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's how he will do it. So that means if we can get marriage equality passed in our own states, it still means that gay marriage will be invalid in other states; if couples who get married in MA move to OH, their marriage will be worthless. This is Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage. What a crock of shit. :puke:

To be donated to DU, barring any unforseen events.

Doing anything of the sort now has a chance of putting Bachmann or Romney in the White House. He's looking out for all of us that way.

Keep this link. I will.

:thumbsup:

:D

true dat.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Give me a break.

I'm amazed at how some people are convinced they are being persecuted on a friendly message board without any notable instances at all.

I know why though. It has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with emotion. If someone says something you do not want to hear, you assign any despicable value to it, convince yourself they meant it the way you've chosen to interpret it, and continue on as though a victim... even though you are among friends.

Why?

One can post a quote too you know. No name attached. If it exists, it can be found and the context discovered.

I've been in many threads where someone made a perfectly rational point and the respondent, twisting the entire thing in their head, replied; "Oh, so I'm supposed to sit down and shut up?", even though the original poster neither said nor intimated any such thing.

So the 'aggrieved' party went away believing something transpired that did not. I'm very well-acquainted with selective and motivated cognition. I know very well that it is not merely emotion-based, but seated in well-worn patterns of seeking to identify 'hostility and establish a guarded or adversarial relationship for the sake of protecting one's person/ideology/ego/etc.

This is one of the most indisputably LGBT friendly sites on the internet. Those who go out of their way to attack or insult the community don't last. Even those who inadvertently offend are chastised for it. Complaints about how 'homophobic' or 'bigoted' the DU community is are more laughable than claims that the M$M is 'Liberal'.

What the poster is referring to are instances where, far more likely than not, she chose, consciously or otherwise, to believe someone said 'sit down and shut up' where no such intent existed. I'm not saying that it can't or doesn't happen, but I know damn well, from seeing it with my own eyes more times than you've wiped your ass, that what I've described is exactly what has transpired and left one poster feeling insulted and another one terribly confused and concerned at least 95% of the time around here.

That is the real reason the poster can't point to any such exchange when asked to, which is not against the rules. Heck, there's even a PM feature if anyone would like to point out offenders in non-public fashion.

That excuse is weak. Don't hide behind it when you know better.

+1 on your comment. I call it "reality vs story".....a person has a story about an issue and regardless of the percentage of reality and facts that exist contrary to their story, their emotions overshadow reality, their story takes on more meaning than reality and their emotions feed their story allowing an interpretation on any given issue to be based more on emotional story rather than well thought out, fact based, reality.

Don't get me wrong, we all do it on different levels from time to time, but the trick is to catch yourself when you are more in your emotional story rather than fact based reality so that you can stop yourself, look at the issue with as little emotion as possible and than make a reality and fact based argument, rather than an emotionally story based one that gets challenged with facts by others and creates more upset and emotion for the person who is trying to reason from a place of emotion and their emotionally created story about a particular issue.

Nothing wrong with a little emotion, but when it stops one from reasoning, then one has lost their ability to negotiate or debate a point from a place of factual reality rather than emotional story which when challenged, creates an additional emotional upset.

So thank you for your comment, years ago I did a 3 day program called the "Landmark Forum" and after that I did the Forum's "Advanced Course". The Forums were all about who are we being, how do we relate, how do we hear each other (what is our "listening" for others), story vs reality, and making others wrong so that we can be right and the costs associated with that behavior.

The Forum also addressed the costs associated with not being present to what is, but rather, being present to your story and emotions about what you "feel" is. It also touched on human beings doing the same things over and over again in life that don't work, but continuing to do them expecting different results (the definition of insanity) I think it's called.

Anyway, no one wants to be called out as being wrong, emotionally, it just doesn't feel good for us humans being, but when you use facts and reality vs emotions and story, chances are you will hold you own in any debate and if anyone disagrees with provable fact, then they most likely are the ones in a story usually fed by their emotions that stops conversation and reasoning, and usually promotes confrontation and upset.

Those who are living in the reality of an issue or situation and are using facts (and nothing wrong with being emotional in stating facts) in their debates and arguments, should feel comfortable when challenged by those emotional, "in a story" types who keep doing the same things over and over again and expecting a different result.

We can either have conversations or confrontations when interacting with each other either in person or online, but I have always found that conversations usually help one to have breakthroughs in life, while confrontations almost always cause one to break down in their emotions. Lou

I know, I know... 'it's everywhere!'. In fact, it's so ubiquitous, it's simply impossible to point out.

:eyes:

If I weren't naive, I might get the feeling that we're being jerked around.

Others appear to be more interested in shouting down those who dare to mention the inconvenient fact that some Americans are paying a very real price right now for our leaders' foot dragging.

Years and years of putting up with "ponies" and "poutrage" and "magic wand" slurs, yet you can still come to GDP any day of the fucking week and see DUers telling other DUers that their "single-issue voter" demands for "special rights" aren't as important as avoiding any appearance of criticizing the President's policies.

:eyes:

Normally, that focus on people over policies would be considered A Bad Thing at DU. Fortunately for those who value unwavering, unquestioning support for the current Administration over the critical struggle for equal rights for all, those who dare to question this disparity are not considered valuable (or even equal) members of the DU community.

And it's painfully obvious.

...apparently he learned nothing from Jim Crow, or perhaps just his playbook.

Better to be patient than over reach too soon and lose everything.

sooner rather than later. The interesting thing is that after he does, it's still going to be a states rights issue.

Of course, having the current and next President standing up for marriage equality will be huge.

Send my campaign money, pound the pavement, work hard at making sure I get reelected and then maybe I'll take care of this little issue for you.

Suckers!!!

:eyes:

Then he'll either be in a position where his opinion doesn't matter(ie, loses) or a position where his opinion doesn't matter(ie wins). Then he will drop the issue entirely, either way.

someone elses neck on the line as long as it is not his neck on the line. Political cowardice in the face of horrible discrimination, suicides of our youth not to mention older people and polls indicating that full equality is what people want.

As long as there is not full equality, marriage equality is only part of that, there will be acceptance of discrimination in enough places that it will be a major problem as it is now. This also gives the RR time to bulk up their fight against it. Just get it done, all at once and it will be done and over with. It will be harder to take full equality away than it is to take away hard fought for but small advances.

and it is stated clearly and unequivocally before multiple witness he has said nothing. We all know how he has in the past relied on a sort of "read the fine print and don't put words in my mouth" type of defense when he's not in support of something. Winks and maybes shouldn't count for much in his case. We need everything from him in writing.

Do not let perfection stand in the way of possible.

The people are way ahead of the politicians on this.

The President's position just seems cowardly to me.

Its bad for people who care more about wanting political drama to ensue over it.

would I be considered racist?

when this President says that.

publicly supported full "marriage equality", I guess they have all been basically the same as racial bigots.

It's telling what the DEMS can go out and support for political gain ("we must be strong on terra!!!111), as well as the things they cannot.

Gay folks are just being used as pawns. Or at least that's how it seems. That's sad. I hope that changes very soon.

GLBT rights are Civil Rights. To split hairs, attempt to make them "less so" and act as if this were apples and oranges really scares the hell out of me. It shouldn't be an issue at all. For me, a straight, white woman (in need of affordable health care) it is the ONLY issue. I put my "issue" on the back burner for this one. Open your eyes.

Bigot or coward......... Perhaps someday we will elect someone who will stand up and do the right thing, simply because it is the right thing.

THAT would be a leader I would be proud of.

But it's not going to happen until after the nation collapses and is rebuilt to the exclusion of corporate influence and with a robust and independent media.

Until then, we will never have a Dennis Kucinich or anyone else who would simply do the right thing.

I'm just glad that we have someone who was savvy enough to get in, and just might be able to do some real good over an eight year term. It's not much, but it is likely the best we could do.

Who knows, given the ambiguity and the way he plays close to the vest (as clearly demonstrated by the OP), he might even surprise some of us.

:fistbump:

who are LGBT!! :(

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Is this guy stupid? It's a goddam human right, but he's going to make it a matter of political calculation? Well, if you have no principles, character, or loyalty, then this is what you do.

But without 'political calculation', we can kiss the pursuit of equal rights goodbye for another decade.

Unfortunately, getting things accomplished in the political realm is more complicated than standing up and saying "I'm for equal rights across the board." and then watching everything fall into place. If you understood this, you would not suggest what you have.

Their earning their keep today.

Gee, who'da thunk it..... :sarcasm:

followed by the word PROMISE.

Deja vu dizzy.

:sarcasm:

Geez Louise. Everybody wants their pony now!

:sarcasm:

In theory gay people should have had the right to marry since much earlier, no? As part of history, everything should have happened far earlier. Women should have had the right to vote at the founding of the republic, not over 100 years later, but the women had to wait those hundred years. Slaves should have been freed before 1860.

It's good to live in this time, rather than say to be gay in 1900. I don't get this attitude - it's self defeating.

For Obama to stay hush-hush on his agenda in order to avoid massive Republican victories in 2012.

No... he should stand up, loud and proud, proclaim equal rights in marriage for all, and hand the Republicans the ammo they need to take control of both houses of Congress. That would be the 'reasonable' thing to do. Perhaps he would not even be burdened with his own office after doing so.

I'm sure that would not result in any 'abominable' outcome at all. At least not compared to this current 'abomination'.

:eyes: :sarcasm: :eyes:

Republicans want to go back earlier than the 1950s. It's as if people think Obama should act as if Republicans have disappeared and have no influence left any more.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Full equality for GLBT's now. Not maybe later. Now.

rat faced Michelle Bachman using gay marriage has a bludgeoning tool.

If he had no intention of dealing with the issue, he would not have even mentioned having 'patience' with him. If he is to safeguard the agenda, he can't come out on it now.

Strong action now will fail. Period. It will give Republicans exactly what they want. It will put the realization of equal rights another decade away... if we're lucky.

I wish this didn't need to be explained to people on a political message board, but I suppose it does.

Right now, buying the message that Obama is somehow 'against equal rights' plays right into the Republican's hands.

Those who think they can do better should try running for president and walking the walk. I'm glad I have a president that understands timing is everything.

No other Democratic president has done so much for the American people in so short a time in office under such horrible economic conditions against such determined conservative opposition in Congress. I'm glad that the leaders of the LGBT community recognize his unparalleled contributions to their civil rights.

:rofl:

Oh yes, there's an annual caucus, with votes tallied by precinct.









What...? You didn't get your invite this year?

I'm sure that was just an oversight.

:boring:

Your efforts to tell the LGBTQ community who its leaders are never fail to amuse.

Somehow, I doubt you'd be so quick to do the same for the African-American community--but perhaps I'm giving too much credit.

You should be embarrassed.

n/t

Why would you think otherwise?

If he really feels that there should be equality, he needs to act on it NOW.

Especially if you're smart enough to give 'em both houses.

It has only happened when people have forced the change and the elected officials were smart enough and/or brave enough to follow them.

to vote for someone else and give the people who support it a reason to suspect you're not serious about your support, else you'd not be dangling it as a carrot on the other side of the voting booth. Truly lose-lose.

I mean by not coming out in support of equal civil rights, he's definitely going to win over the religious homophobes and bigots. Because I mean there are just so many of them who have so many other reasons that they want to vote for Obama but goshdarnit this is just a sticking point with them. But now that he's played it so safe he's DEFINITELY going to win their votes. Wise move. Smart move politically.

And also, now is not the time to be focusing on this. Now is the time to be focusing on jobs and the economy. I mean we wouldn't want him to take precious seconds from his heavy duty action on the jobs front. Would get in the way of all his great ideas like....tax cuts for corporations....and cutting government spending....and charter schools.....and not supporting unions.

I mean, yeah of course he had the time to attend a FUNDRAISER to get money from the LGBT crowd. Just not to actually take any form of stand or risk or anything of the sort.

- Fool me twice, Shame on ME."

He can't do it it now because it would likely destroy his reelection chances as well as down-ticket Dems. I'm not saying that's morally correct, but from a pragmatic/political point of view, it makes sense. A Republican president obviously won't support it, and would try to roll back GLBT progress made under Obama, who is certainly the most pro-GLBT president to date, his stated view on marriage equality aside.

Obama is certainly not some Bible-thumping homophobe and has not advocated or signed any legislation that was specifically harmful to the GLBT community. I think he's playing it carefully until he knows he's politically safe.

but it would "destroy" Obama's chances to do the good and moral thing that a majority of the nation supports.

Gotcha.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-gay-marriage-poll-idUSTRE74K0B520110521

Gallup said Democrats and political independents accounted for the entire shift in its survey compared to last year, when only 44 percent of all respondents favored gay marriage, while 53 percent were opposed. The percentage of Republicans favoring same-sex matrimony held steady at 28 percent.

They didn't break that down any further, but we don't know how much of the increased support came from independents or from Dems, who are highly likely to vote for Obama regardless of his stance on the issue.

In a sign of a generation gap, Gallup found 70 percent of respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 support gay marriage, compared to only 39 percent among those 55 and older.

Younger voters unfortunately have far lower turnout than older people, so their 70% approval for equality may not be enough to counter the lower approval numbers of those 55 and older. If you don't believe me, look how seniors turned out for the NY special election that became a referendum on Medicare.

Again, I'm NOT saying Obama is morally correct in his views on the issue or on withholding his advocacy for several years until it's politically safe. I'm just trying to illustrate how he is likely viewing his strategy on the issue.

Yup, just look at the shitpiles of precedent!

In the wake of the 2014 elections the excuses on all counts will be not upsetting fickle and cautious independents for 2016 and/or not inflaming an intransigent opposition.

In 2016 should we be able to drag whatever corporate taintlicker the party bosses foist on us it will be rinse and repeat for the next mid-term until we loose for doing shit but implementing old Republican failed and stupid policies and whining about TeaPubliKlans, at which point the liberals can be blamed and castigated and the machine politicians will say they have to adopt TeaPubliKlan positions (ignoring that was what they were doing the whole time) and TeaPubliKlans will be forced to be more extremist to stand apart.

This movie has played before as has the phony and hollow machinations of a soulless and weather vane brand of politics.

in private moments.

Asinine.

hints, not statements but hints, that he will say something if he is reelected which he should be saying presently are being foolish.

Kinda like a plastic carrot held out to a starving mule.

the Democratic Party. And by not standing up for the gays now, he could
very well lose some of their votes.

:(