Obamarama

Jan 22, 2009 11:13

So resk  has pointed out to me that while I was quick to express my outrage here about Obama's choice of Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration and my decision to stop supporting both him and the entire Democratic Party, I have been silent here about the fact that I have come around on this issue.

I am still angry, and moreover confused, that Rick ( Read more... )

news, gays, politics

Leave a comment

k_sui January 22 2009, 17:29:09 UTC
Tread warily. Politicians are by definition political and while it seems unlikely the LGBT community would be one that President Obama would toss out of the boat, it's not like it hasn't happened before. (Thanks, President Clinton.) And it is the one that evangelical Christians tend to get the most agitated about. It's right up there with reproductive rights. That makes it a classic wedge issue.

Reply

resk January 22 2009, 18:08:59 UTC
Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make when atothek and I were discussing it. Gay Rights have come a long way, and Obama appears to be a supporter, yet he said he was against gay marriage during his campaign. Why? The answer is simple. If he had supported gay marriage, he would have lost. The country isn't ready for it yet. The sane, intelligent, open-minded people are, but that's currently slightly less than half the population.

Reply

k_sui January 22 2009, 18:14:23 UTC
Do you really think that would have killed his candidacy? I think his electoral coattails would have shrunk, but I don't think he loses.

Reply

resk January 22 2009, 18:26:44 UTC
I think it would have changed the game, for sure. But so many things could have. Remember, Hillary won the popular vote by 500,000 between the two of them. And if the Reverend Wright thing had happened earlier on, he would've been sunk.

Reply

k_sui January 22 2009, 18:38:46 UTC
Whoa there, champ. You just disproved your own thesis -- Clinton supports gay marriage. More to the point, the primary and caucuses are not at all representative of the general populace. So maybe I'm disproving my own rebuttal to your point. Whatever.

Anyway, the whole thing makes me mildly crazy because federal law isn't the important part here -- it's state laws (and constitutions) that need to be addressed. Federal law only affects certain very specific federal bennies. I understand that those are important, but in the end, they are largely about some money and are symbolic. The larger issues (to my mind, anyway) are at the state level.

Reply

atothek January 22 2009, 19:01:32 UTC
Actually, Hillary Clinton did not officially endorse gay marriage. She supported civil unions as well.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up