Thursday, May 10, 2012

President Obama and Gay Marriage


After hearing the president's announcement of his personal support of  same-sex marriage, I just wanted to enjoy the president's positive statement. I figured that there would be affirmation and support for the president among progressives. Was I wrong!

PZ Myers post over at Pharyngula is an accurate reflection of the critiscism that the president is reaping from some progressives and some members of the LGBT community who feel that the president's statement was weak and insignificant. Myers writes:
That’s the best we’ve got from Obama? Seriously? It’s taken him this long to “evolve” to the point where he can take a personal (not even a political) stand on civil rights? 
What do people expect from this president? He has gone further than any president has before. What is there to be skeptical about? This was not a clever campaign move designed to garner votes. In taking this position he stands to lose some Black and Latino votes, two groups with numbers significant enough to make a difference in November. What he may gain from the LGBT vote will not be nearly enough in numbers to compensate for the votes that he stands to lose. I think that he did the right thing because it was the right thing to do.

But I am flabbergasted at some of the responses from his critics who identify with the progressive movement. Everything does not happen at once. During his administration, DADT has been repealed and cannot rear its ugly head again unless Congress passes another discriminatory law. Unlike what could have happened if he had merely ended DADT with an Executive Order that would have had limited authority for enforcement and that could have been easily rescinded by the next president without congressional approval.

Now he has taken a very public position on an issue that no president before him has ever addressed. What's the alternative position? Would you prefer that he have continued to say nothing? Exactly what nefarious reason could he have for making this declaration in favor of equality?

And the notion that his speaking out two or three years ago would have made any difference in North Carolina's recent vote to amend the state constitution to declare that marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic union recognized in the state is ludicrous. This particular legislation has been proposed every legislative session for at least the last five years. NC joins 30 other states that have already passed similar constitutional amendments. The majority of voters still don't believe in same-sex marriage as evidenced by the 31 states where citizens came down firmly against safe-sex marriage by referendum. No other president has said a word about gay marriage and now this man finally speaks up and the whine is, it's not enough? Obama made history on Tuesday.

Obama has been in office less than four years and in those four years it seems that people expected him to undo the biases and prejudices that have been firmly entrenched in this culture for centuries. Myers and his allegedly progressive cohorts sound like petulant children and don't offer any constructive criticism, only complaints that Obama hasn't done enough. For the 100th time, presidents don't propose nor write legislation and an Executive Order is not a magic wand. Most of what the public believes can be done with an EO is based on a total misunderstanding of the scope of the president's power.

All of you who feel betrayed by President Obama, would you feel better if he hadn't addressed the issue at all? What's your plan for November? Quite a few critics of the president's statement in support of same-sex marriages also declared their intent not to give their vote to Obama in November. I can only assume that they somehow believe that helping Romney win the presidency will teach Obama and the Democrats a lesson. I think that this is what it means to cut off your nose to spite your face.

Think this is far fetched? Perhaps you missed the story from West Virginia about Tuesday's primary. Keith Judd, currently incarcerated in Texas, managed to get himself on the ballot for West Virginia's Democratic primary. Judd got 40% of the Democratic vote. It seems that 40% of Democrats cast their vote for Judd in order to to vote against President Obama. You can't make this stuff up. If we end up with a President Romney, there are a whole lot of people who are going o have some explaining to do.

7 comments:

  1. "That’s the best we’ve got from Obama? Seriously? It’s taken him this long to “evolve” to the point where he can take a personal (not even a political) stand on civil rights?"

    Well, as I've said many a times the LGBT movement has its radicals as well.

    Having said the above, and having issue only with calling same sex unions "marriage", I give the President credit for his decision.

    It is time to move on and address the real threat(s) to our security and national well being. Same sex relationships pose no threat or danger to the "American" way of life. Although I hear the socons and fundies gnashing their teeth at your post, and, as I write this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unlike RN, I'm happy to stay with and enjoy this momentous decision by the president. Implying that there are "real threats" to our country other than supporting freedom and justice for our own citizens seems a bit dismissive to me on an issue that goes to the core of what sort of a country we are.

    I'm relishing the moment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harpy you feel this is the paramount issue of our time (I know my word no yours). By all means relish the moment and I'll be relishing the act of working and living alongside the LGBT community as those of us with a sense of fiscal responsibly and independence put shoulder to the stone to solve problems. It seems to me this is well on the way of being resolved, the wheels are turning.

      Sorry you think I am dismissive. Apparently you never read the article I wrote and had published in the Daily Caller. No biggie, I'm comfortable in my own skin fighting the truly unreasonable and dismissive on the far right.

      It is good not carrying water for any special interests.

      Delete
  3. Sister,

    As much as I have found myself in agreement with PZ Myers in the past, his knuckle headed attitude is totally self self-defeating, as you so eloquently point out. It sabotages us and U.S., and concedes the street to rampaging brown shirts.

    When I read PZ Myers and Jane Hamsher of FDL, I could scream because they fail to take into account the responsibilities of a true leader to be measured and nuanced when engaged in highly charged political debates. Yes, I must admit with profound regret that there is an Obama Derangement Syndrome within our ranks. What Myers, Hamsher and others should do, in my inky opinion, is to advance and facilitate this debate, not cripple the president.

    Why not, for instance, write something on the Constitutional issues that must be considered, starting the Preamble which refers to all human beings as created equal under law. Or perhaps the disestablishment clause of the 1st amendment which should prohibit certain religious denominations from discriminating against groups of citizens. Or perhaps the equal protection provision of Article XIV, which clearly states:

    ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    This is the public debate we should be having instead of the backbiting and talking heads bullshit that passes for news these days.

    ReplyDelete
  4. (O)CT(O)PUS, clearly logical thought is a family trait. You are so on target as to what should be the topic of public debate. We definitely need to do all that we can to frame this debate in a valid context rather than continuing to allow it to be hijacked by evangelical bigotry and political nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I give your post an A+. I recommended it on Facebook. Thanks for injecting some sanity in the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It would not be an issue, if not for the right constantly bringing it up and forcing the president to take a stance. Yes, by all means RN lets move onto more important issues, than the issues your Republicans bring up. Oh that's right, the Republican House has not brought up any issues other than, same sex marriage, defunding Planned Parenthood, and other issues killing America.
    Yes, you write the praises of Sarah Palin (you wrote she would be a great head of the GOP) Alan West (you wrote he is the best Rep. in Congress and is a great leader) I guess he's to busy counting Commies, to lead the House. You voted for McCain, yet you keep trying to imply you are an independent. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.