Ah, cute

[solarbird]

So the "Yes on 8" movement - the one saying that same-sex marriage is like supporting Hitler, and reviving old-time "queers want to rape your children and turn them into fags" language - have sent out a mailer claiming Senator Obama supports their efforts, quoting him on his stated opposition to marriage rights. However, he's also - arguably disingenuously, and only in a low-key written statement some time ago - stated his opposition to Proposition 8. The "No on 8" effort are asking for donations for an emergency response effort.

This puts Senator Obama into an amusing position. He can be silent on this, which is my expectation (well, okay, he might make a low-key comment that he's already stated his opposition to the measure as "divisive" or somesuch, but I doubt it), and remind all the gayfolk that he's opposed to actual legal equality, or he can make a clear and relatively strong statement against the initiative, and unleash the horde of "Obama's a faggot lover" commercials I rather suspect the fundamentalists of the GOP already have lined up.

Now as I've noted before, there's precious little support in the "progressive community" for Senator Obama sticking his next out for queers - quite the opposite, in fact, go read that post if you haven't already - so I don't think it'll hurt him with the bulk of even his pro-marriage supporters. Given that, it's not really much of a box - which side to break is pretty trivial. But it still illustrates the kind of box someone can build for you when you try to have things both ways.

(BTW, I do note with quite a bit of surprise that Bill Clinton recorded a robocall for the No on 8 side. Given the disaster of Don't Ask/Don't Tell, his trumpeting - at the time - of DOMA, and his vicious advice to John Kerry to endorse anti-marriage initiatives in 2004, I'm surprised - and not even sure how I feel about it.)

Comments

[adularia.livejournal.com]

I got that email too. I'm disappointed in Obama's stated position, but I tell myself he's lying there - lying and pandering both - and sacrificing some ground on this issue in order to suck up to swing voters. Which, really, I'm ok with.

We need a liberal president who's as close to progressive as a viable US candidate can get. I don't feel particularly betrayed by his stance. He will not -- unless he completely falls off the sanity wagon between now and his presumed presidency -- do anything to obstruct the progression of marriage rights in the states, and I hold out hope that if something that would invalidate DOMA crosses his desk, he will sign it. I get this impression from the difference in how he talks about it - he talks about 'civil unions' in the abstract, as a legal construct, whereas McCain and Palin always go for the jugular and blather about "between a man and a woman."

I really hope I don't regret that impression. I've donated as much as I can spare to No on 8.

[solarbird]

I don't feel betrayed on this; it's not like he's changed his position. I just worry that a lot of people are thinking the way you are, and I think that's going to produce some unpleasant surprises come the new year.

[adularia.livejournal.com]

Do you think he actually will turn to be out an obstructor?

[solarbird]

Actively? I don't think so. He might, though; I thought he would vote a quiet "no" on FISA and simply fail to lead any opposition, and then he spun around and endorsed it. So whether he'd veto some bill or other will depend, I think, on the politics of the moment.

Bah

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

::points to keynote speaker of his faith and values tour::

Not that I don't adore the guy and think he's the new messiah and a great selfless champion of all good causes and not that I'm not breathlessly waiting for the coming salvation of all things soon after his inauguration, but . . .

::stops self::

[backrubbear.livejournal.com]

I was never terribly shocked that at the FISA action. What it effectively came down to was from Congress on down, they telcos were told to do something that was illegal and *everyone* knew it was illegal. They just thought it was justified.

They weren't going to hang the telcos out to dry when they were responsible themselves. It's certainly no way to get cooperation when it's time to do the next illegal thing.

[backrubbear.livejournal.com]

he talks about 'civil unions' in the abstract, as a legal construct,

I'm one of those who would be fine with "civil unions equal to marriage". As far as I'm concerned, if the states want to make a distinction of the civil definition of a registered partnership with its relevant rights and responsibilities from one of the methods of solemnizing it, that's cool.

The problem is that too many states have specific language about marriage embedded in their laws. Michigan, for example, not only has a good chunk of "marriage" and "man and woman" spread throughout 150 years worth of law, it also mentions an awful lot of religious stuff that leaves me surprised it'd stand up in a court of law under first amendment grounds.

[shadesofmauve]

it also mentions an awful lot of religious stuff that leaves me surprised it'd stand up in a court of law under first amendment grounds.

Unless someone chooses to challenge it, it isn't reviewed by the court, so it might NOT stand up in a court of law...but lots of things that are apparently minor, or outdated, are left on the books because of the bother to change them. Doesn't mean it's right, or that the courts are perfect, of course, but legislators at state and federal level pass unconstitutional crap all the time, and it doesn't get judicial review unless someone demands it.

I'd love to see civil unions, i.e. government endorsed partnerships, offered to whoever wants them, and marriage a separate, non-legally-binding religious thing you can do at a church or not do as you please. If it's religious or spiritual, the state has no part in it. If it's about social and economic stability, it should be open to *anyone*.

[silussa.livejournal.com]

From a political point of view, it was a cute move on the part of the "Yes on 8" group. They're gambling that Obama won't publicly repudiate their claim and potentially lose a ton of votes in critical red-leaning states.

That's a fairly safe bet, I fear.

But then, one must remember that in politics, there is always a certain willingness to toss someone under the bus to win. Indeed, I seem to recall a certain item of congressional legislation, supported by the GLBT community, where "T" got tossed under the bus to make it more winnable for GLB.

I mean no ill will here; I've already voted against the similar Amendment 2 here in Florida. However, there is a certain amount of cold amusement in the situation.

[angharads-house.livejournal.com]

Yes, it did have a certain sense of invitation to bus-tosserie, to it.

As an alien, I am forbidden to participate directly in the No on 8 campaign, but have certainly made my very strong feelings on the subject known to friends and kinfolk within California.

Attitude anent Focus on the Family and fellow-travellers may simply be summarised as "fuckwads". "Douchebag scum" is too nice a name for them.

Tuesday night will be interesting, no doubt of it.

[solarbird]

And then it died stone cold in the Senate, exactly like I said it would. Well done, Democratic party, helping split the GLBT coalition and fucking over some of your own base; and nicely done, HRC, shuffling off those ickier queers who got the whole marriage thing started while you were wanking off about fuck-all - and all in exchange for zippo. Nicely done.

[darthhellokitty.livejournal.com]

Given the disaster of Don't Ask/Don't Tell, his trumpeting - at the time - of DOMA, and his vicious advice to John Kerry to endorse anti-marriage initiatives in 2004, I'm surprised - and not even sure how I feel about it.

Maybe he feels guilty for being such a jerk about it...

As for Obama: I only expect so much from him. He'll still be better than the alternative.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

The reality is that Democratic politicians privately support gay rights, including marriage equality. But they're scared to death of the political consequences of being publicly honest about their beliefs. So, when they're in office or running for office, they have to be against marriage. But when they're out of office, as Bill Clinton is, they're free to be more honest.

It sucks that this spineless position on basic civil rights is so common, but it's not surprising.

[solarbird]

The reality is that Democratic politicians privately support gay rights, including marriage equality. But they're scared to death of the political consequences of being publicly honest about their beliefs. So, when they're in office or running for office, they have to be against marriage. But when they're out of office, as Bill Clinton is, they're free to be more honest.
Yeah, I call that "being part of the problem."

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

They are contributing to the problem, yes. On the other hand, if they lose election to social conservatives, that contributes even more to the problem. They're left with a choice of pragmatism over principle, and pragmatism wins with pretty much every politician every time. Even strong supporters of marriage equality are acting pragmatically: they are in districts where supporting discrimination would go against the wishes of their constituents.

Ultimately, activists for any cause have to lead the politicians--it simply doesn't work the other way around and never has. That means changing opinions on the ground, as much through setting a good example as any specific political act, and working through legal channels when they are available.

As voters, the best thing we can do is vote pragmatically while remaining critical of the shortcomings of those we vote for as much or even more than those we vote against. In this election, that means voting for Democrats pretty much up and down the ballot, and getting ready to hold them accountable after November 4.

One person you definitely should NOT vote for is Bob Barr; he is a social conservative, and one of the worst choices as far as civil rights and marriage equality. Pragmatism also suggests that even on issues where Obama has voted poorly (FISA, for example) he offers the best choice in terms of future policies once he is president. Barr might be better on those issues if he had a chance of being elected. He doesn't, and a symbolic vote for him on constitutional issues sends an equally bad message on issues such as reproductive freedom and marriage equality.

[silussa.livejournal.com]

Bill clinton is the consummate politician who tends to say what he needs to to get a positive response. Perhaps the "No on 8" call indicates where his true feelings are....but I wouldn't want to bet on it.