1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Waiting for GayD'Oh!

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by basso, Aug 5, 2009.

  1. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,870
    Likes Received:
    6,551
    I've been making this same point for since the election- it's gratifying to see that some "liberals" are finally begining to notice that the man they helped get elected may not be quite so "progressive" on social issues as he is on economic ones (although, i'd argue he's actually regressive on both).

    [rquoter]Obama Said 'I Don't.' He May Just Mean It.
    By James Kirchick
    Sunday, August 2, 2009

    Last month, former president Bill Clinton joined the increasing number of Democratic politicians who publicly back same-sex marriage. Granted, Clinton's endorsement -- offered in response to a questioner at a Washington conference for liberal college activists -- was heavily qualified: Clinton said he is "basically in support" of providing legal recognition to gay couples. This latter-day epiphany from the man who signed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions, earned warm praise from gay activists. "I personally support people doing what they want to do," Clinton said, and people seemed to believe his apparent change of heart.

    Others, however, claimed to know that he has been for gay marriage all along. Kerry Eleveld, Washington correspondent for the Advocate, wrote that "no one ever really believed [Clinton] opposed marriage equality. Call it craven politics, but everyone knows Clinton signed DOMA into law before the '96 election to avoid a potential GOP family-values offensive at the ballot box." Eleveld and others contend that support for same-sex marriage among liberal elected officials is a given. It's just that pesky political exigencies prevent them from publicly expressing their "real" beliefs.

    There's no doubt that part of Clinton's motivation for signing DOMA was to prevent the Republican Party from using it as a wedge issue. But whether or not that law went against his actual convictions, it is part of Clinton's legacy to the gay community, along with "don't ask, don't tell." Repealing both is the most important task of the gay rights movement today.

    When it comes to same-sex marriage, the movement can't count on support from the current president either. When White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about Clinton's comments, he told reporters that his boss "does not support" same-sex marriage. "He supports civil unions," Gibbs assured. And despite President Obama's statement that he opposes the ban on gays serving openly in the military, Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings (Fla.) last week said that the White House pressured him to withdraw an amendment that would have prohibited funds from being spent on investigating "don't ask, don't tell" violations.

    Even if Obama does in fact believe in marriage equality, he hasn't done -- and is unlikely to do -- much to forward the cause. And apart from some toothless sniping from a handful of gay activists and donors, he seems to be getting away with it. In this way, the presumed (yet secret) good intentions of Democrats can wind up doing more harm than good: They tell the gay community that Democrats are at least better than the GOP, thus providing an excuse that can be employed endlessly while they stall.

    This trust in covert backing from liberal elected officials is an article of faith among most supporters of same-sex marriage. In a recent interview with Newsweek, gay playwright Tony Kushner spoke of Obama's secret belief in the righteousness of same-sex marriage as if it were painfully obvious. "Pbbbht! Of course he's in favor of gay marriage!" Kushner exclaimed. His views were echoed by Steve Hildebrand, a gay political consultant who served as Obama's deputy national campaign director. "I do believe that in his heart he will fight his tail off until we've achieved full equality in the gay community," he told journalist Rex Wockner. I've lost track of the number of liberal friends and acquaintances, gay and straight alike, who assure me that Obama "really" supports same-sex marriage and, furthermore, that this point is obvious.

    How can they be so sure? People want to like political leaders, and when someone as charismatic as Clinton or Obama comes along, it's easy to ignore the facts that get in the way of an idealized image. That liberal politicians are indifferent -- if not outright opposed -- to same-sex marriage stands at utter odds with liberals' notion of an enlightened community of like-minded progressives. "Does anybody actually believe that Barack Obama and Michelle Obama think that we shouldn't have -- that this man who is a constitutional-law scholar -- is it a complicated issue?" Kushner sputtered, as if anyone who disagreed were an imbecile.

    Because people such as Kushner view political liberalism as a positive personality trait and not just a worldview, they assume that someone who opposed the Iraq war and sees himself as a "citizen of the world" would also believe in the right of gays to marry. People cannot conceive that such a cosmopolitan and eloquent man as Obama would disagree with them on an issue that they consider a no-brainer.

    This is convenient for liberals because it allows them to deflect blame from politicians they like onto those they don't, namely conservatives, the sincerity of whose opposition to same-sex marriage they never challenge. If only Republicans desisted in their homophobia, this narrative goes, justifiably timid liberals would come out of their closets of prevarication, so to speak, and support gay marriage unambiguously.

    Framing gay rights as a strictly partisan issue also allows liberals to obscure the awkward fact that while they are more likely than conservatives to support same-sex marriage, a key Democratic constituency, African Americans, overwhelmingly opposes it.

    Obama's history on the issue does have a complicating twist. On a 1996 Illinois Senate race questionnaire, Obama (or more likely a staffer) wrote, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." Liberals take from this revelation the assumption that Obama's apparent flip was insincere.

    But there is nothing in his record since he became a national political figure that should give them any reason to think he will revert to his supposedly pro-gay-marriage position. And if Obama actually does believe in same-sex marriage, that makes his public opposition to it worse than it would be if he were genuinely opposed. How is it in any way reassuring to liberals to suppose that a politician agrees with them while selling them down the river? Even if Obama's apparent flip isn't genuine, he nonetheless acts as if it were, rendering his supposedly silent support worthless in tangible political terms. Whatever he "really" thinks, Obama's stance on gay marriage is virtually indistinguishable from that of John McCain.

    For some time, liberal politicians have taken a largely wink-and-nod approach to gay issues. They've done so with the excuse that the culture must catch up before any progress can be made (an excuse that conveniently doesn't apply to other liberal interest groups, such as unions and trial lawyers, that do very well when Democrats are in power). Obama paid tribute to this timeworn tactic recently when he told gay activists at the White House: "I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, but by the promises my administration keeps. By the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."

    Talking about "feelings" is a cuddly liberal pastime, and Obama's promise conjures up the phrase that Clinton famously entered into our political lexicon when he told an angry AIDS activist, "I feel your pain." Maybe now, when it comes to same-sex marriage, he finally does. But it would be nice to have a sitting president whose feelings translate into action.

    James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic and a contributing writer to the Advocate.[/rquoter]
     
    #1 basso, Aug 5, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2009
  2. Dairy Ashford

    Dairy Ashford Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,507
    Likes Received:
    1,833
    No one can get elected President now publicly supporting gay marriage, because the majority of people in this country don't want it; including the woman you wanted as commander in chief. Social issues are always - always - secondary to fiscal, economic and foreign policy issues; if you want to (maybe, eventually) balance a budget, fix a recession and end a dumb, phony war, you can't waste political capital supporting an unpopular social issue. If Obama were to advocate gay marriage, then every single politician you've supported on this board would attack him for it.
     
  3. gifford1967

    gifford1967 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    8,048
    Likes Received:
    3,902
  4. bnb

    bnb Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    6,992
    Likes Received:
    315
    Don't know why this couldn't have gone in any of your other "obama doesn't support gay marriage' threads. Or what's with the Clinton reference in the article. Clinton is 'basically in support' of providing legal recognition for gay couples, and Obama supports civil unions. Difference?

    Plus partisan attacks don't hold much credence if the other side offers no alternative.
     
  5. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,986
    Likes Received:
    36,552
    Rudy Gay is not coming to the Rockets - give it up please.

    Oh, and wrong forum AGAIN dumbass.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. RedRedemption

    RedRedemption Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    32,472
    Likes Received:
    7,652
  7. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,870
    Likes Received:
    6,551
    Sam, is your use of "ass" in your post, in close proximity to "Gay," your way of overcompensating for your support of politicians who do not support gay ass?

    and yes, there is something wrong with that.
     
  8. The_Yoyo

    The_Yoyo Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
    Messages:
    16,683
    Likes Received:
    2,872

    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gifford1967 again.
     
  9. Nice Rollin

    Nice Rollin Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    11,857
    Likes Received:
    321
    repped
     
  10. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    42,794
    Likes Received:
    3,005
    sorry gifford preemptively

    Once again Basso attacks the black community who wouldn't give a damn if gay people got married and it certainly would stop them from voting dems. as if black churches are out holding protests in states where gays already get married. race baiting isn't even beyond basso anymore.

    next time some black kids bash some gay guy's head in a hate crime come talk to me.
     
  11. RedRedemption

    RedRedemption Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    32,472
    Likes Received:
    7,652
    He used the word "dumbass". Which is one word. :)
     
  12. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost be kind. be brave.
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    47,507
    Likes Received:
    17,229
  13. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,870
    Likes Received:
    6,551
    "I" attacked the black community? i think you should direct your anger at the author of the piece, or perhaps the WaPo for publishing it, not me.
     
  14. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    42,794
    Likes Received:
    3,005

    is that why you underlined it
     
  15. basso

    basso Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    29,870
    Likes Received:
    6,551
    i highlighted a lot of things- for Deckard's benefit.
     
  16. Honey Bear

    Honey Bear Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    555
    I saw Basso kissing Santa Claus, underneath the mistletoe last night.
     
  17. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
  18. Landlord Landry

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Messages:
    6,857
    Likes Received:
    295
    when you can't get the folks here to get on board with you on the one subject they agree with you on.......

    [​IMG]
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. Codman

    Codman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2001
    Messages:
    6,765
    Likes Received:
    11,710
    Quoted for truth. Thank you, Landlord Landry.
     
  20. RedRedemption

    RedRedemption Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    32,472
    Likes Received:
    7,652
    He grasping at straws here. We should just ignore his threads completely. :/
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now