I see the Beltway has their feinting couches (And I mean feint) and smelling salts at the ready, always important should they need to be revived after passing out at the latest manufactured crisis that’s all the right-wing rage today. Concern trolling on gay marriage was going gangbusters among the Morning Joe gang, especially with GOP Joe, but they didn’t invent the genre or create this particular iteration of it.
(NY Daily) — Skeptical reporters weren’t buying, suggesting by their questions that Obama is trying to have it both ways by trumpeting his opposition to state bans on gay marriage while refusing to say he supports it
.”It seems cynical to hide this until after the election,” ABC’s Jake Tapper challenged Carney. “Everybody in this room is reacting in the way that folks often do to one story that takes off and then they run down the field and chase it,” Carney complained. “It is as it was.”
The issue became a flash point Sunday when Vice President Biden said he is “absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties.”
Only the most agile villagers can pivot from the most ‘radical anti-American lefty commie President in history’ to calling Obama out for being too centrist. But that’s exactly the contortions you will see throughout the news day today by top rated media acrobats.
I’m not sure exactly what all is going on here, but there’s a healthy dose of wishful thinking afflicting some pundits I’ve seen this morning already, and it seems to be spreading mostly on the right. They seem to think they have uncovered some kind of fault line that will cause collapse. Let’s be clear: If the election was between a candidate who endorsed traditional marriage and one who promoted civil unions instead, then yes, single-issue pro-civil rights voters would tend to choose the former and those against gay marriage, and teh gay in general, would probably not vote at all or vote for the former.
But that’s hardly the choice available. Single issue voters, and most anyone else with a cable news subscription or Internet service, have been extraordinarily well-informed about exactly what the choice is by the respective parties. One party has a big wing that is weighing the political risks and benefits of civil unions vs marriage, the other has a vocal wing torn between putting gay people in prison and putting them to death to appease a magical invisible sky wizard who, sooner or later, will rejoice at flinging them out of Heaven’s Judgment room and turn them over to an immortal psychopath for eternal torture. It happens that no matter what the quasi-sane members of the prison vs death wing say, those holding hatred and prejudice tight like a warm blanket can’t help but shoot their mouths off 24/7 about how much they hate teh gay and want them punished in some horrible way.
If anyone on the right — or the left — thinks that’s a hard decision for single issues voters, or most anyone else, there’s probably two explanations: they believe in magical invisible wizards and some form of pixie dust themselves, or they have a vested, cynical interest in hyping a non issue to sell copy and advertising. Capiche Mr. Tapper et al?
Marriage is a basic human right: even the United States Supreme Court said so, in their 1968 decision on Loving v. Virginia. Only bullies and bigots refuse to support basic human rights on the grounds of political expediency.
I am not a one-issue voter. However, the fact that Obama has opposed LGBT rights at every possible opportunity, and has had to be bullied or publicly shamed into giving the minimal support that he has given, will definitely weigh in my considerations come November.
Oh, “feint”! Good one! Yes, that’s all it is.
In fairness, Obama is trying to have it both ways on this issue. He should just make a definitive statement on the issue. The people who feel strongly against gay marriage aren’t going to vote for him anyway and it will shore up his support among those who feel strongly for it.
I’m getting so sick of this centrist tightrope walking. If people are against gay marriage, they’re probably not voting for Obama anyway. He’s never going to get the hard core anti-gay people on his side. We finally have a majority in favor of gay marriage. And it’s growing in support. Doesn’t he want to be on the right side of history? Obama needs to stop being so wishy-washy and just take a stand. It’ll obviously energize his base and get them out to vote. The longer he walks down the middle, the more lukewarm his base will be.
Seems like the only time he can show a backbone is when he’s violating civil liberties and blowing people up.
I am not sure what exactly you have been seeing where Obama has opposed “LGBT rights at every possible opportunity”. I have seen more in the last three years then every before.
Have even found a list including
Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Repealed Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell
Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality
The opposed LGBT rights is a right-wing zombie lie that has been adopted by some folks on our side, but not many and they usually come aorund when they see good evidence otherwise.
It’s a little odd hearing someone say Obama is trying to have it both ways … he’s been for civil unions from the start and he’s been saying it’s for personal and political reasons, and he’s said he recognizes some people disagree with him and that unions vs trad marriage is a great a topic for debate. ::Shrug::: he’s been consistent regardless if you agree with it and he welcomes those who argue for full marriage in his WH.
Now, if you want to see some hilarious having it both ways comedy stylings, check out the main post above this one on Romney vs Romney.
@Stephen – As an openly gay man and liberal activist, I can assure you: Obama’s opposition to LGBT rights is NOT a “right-wing zombie lie.” It is the truth.
The much touted change in federal regulations that now require hospitals to recognize the rights of civil unioners, domestic partners and same-sex spouses? HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the rule change without first consulting with the White House. The president was put into a position of either endorsing it or opposing it. He endorsed it, and told Sebelius that if she ever embarassed the president like that again, she would be fired.
Obama’s statement against California’s Proposition 8 was made at the 11th hour, after mail-in ballots had been sent out and presumably had started to come back in: it was lukewarm, and supported a state’s right to make its own decisions (including, presumably, a state’s right to eliminate human rights already mandated by the state Supreme Court.) Obama’s only statement against North Carolina’s Amendment One was made in March: it pointed out that state law already limited marriage to one man and one woman, and contained a similar comment about state’s rights.
Obama fought very hard against judicial repeal of Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell. He took no action to support legislative repeal, and dragged his feet as long as he could before signing off on it. He refused to stop military discharges under his authority to invoke stop-loss, a power that he otherwise used quite frequently to prevent men and women on active duty from leaving the service.
Obama has aggressively opposed judicial repeal of the
DenialDefense of Marriage Act: his Justice Department — without censure from the White House — issued briefs in two separate cases that compared same-sex marriage to bestiality. Although he has now taken a policy of not actively opposing judicial repeal, the Justice Department continues to throw up roadblocks preventing cases challenging DOMA. He has done nothing to support legislative repeal. While several ranking members of his staff openly support repeal of DOMA, Obama himself remains silent. He has never renounced his earlier statements about his firm belief that marriage can only be heterosexual.Fine: Obama occasionally makes milquetoast comments in favor of equality and respecting families. Fine: Obama has invited openly gay families to the White House Easter Egg roll. All meaningless gestures designed for show; all smoke and mirrors with no substance whatsoever. For someone who declared himself to be our “fierce advocate,” all he has to offer are platituded.
Sorry, but I do not call that support.
Thanks for the input Greg. But here’s there thing … I can find statements by gay activists explaining all of that, some of it as policies that were already in place and have a certain legal inertia, some as aspects of policy that the President cannot unilaterally change, some of it as hype, some of it legit political triangulation or legit disagreement. And what’s more is I bet you know those explanations exist.
But in the event an LGBT right’s activist is so seriously pissed off at Obama over that kind of thing that they can’t think straight, by all means, spread your fury, and maybe, if you work hard enough, perhaps you can provide a tiny electoral boost to the folks who want to douse gay people in kerosene set them on fire.
That makes zero sense to me but it’s a free country and sometimes voters get too pissed off to care about strategy.
@8 Steven, about all I can say in regards to Gregory is that the lesser of two evils is still evil. I realize that Romney is going to be way worse on these sorts of things than Obama ever could. On the other hand, I find it quite annoying when liberals give Obama more credit for the repeal of DADT and such than he deserves. I can understand the worry about people who are frustrated such as I, and apparently Gregory, hurting the chances of Obama winning re-election (or hurting the chances of liberals in more local elections), but at what point does it become Obama’s responsibility to appeal to his voters and/or be a leader?
We’re gonna have to disagree on this folks, I get the expression ‘lesser of two evils,’ no problem there, and I guess that’s right in the sense that one choice, the GOP, is terrible and the other one, the dems, are an improvement in the status quo for most states. But in literal terms, if we’re talking about the civil union vs marriage deal, I don’t think I could fathom how a discussion about who prefers civil unions vs full marriages would really be “evil”. If we were discussing it for regular marriages for exmaple, “should they be called called marriages or civil unions?” that would not be evil in my view. It would be kinda wonky and subtle, imo. (In fact I don’t see the difference if the legal benefits are the same there: call it what you want, the people getting marrried or unioned will call it what they want and introduce their spouses how they want.)
I see can how burn gays alive or put them in jail is evil. I can see where scapegoating any group and/or using them to frighten the other group and deny them rights is ugly, and in some cases will overlap with evil. But to call civil unions vs marriage evil seems like a fairly big exaggeration to me.
Kind of makes me wish Joltin’ Joe Biden had been elected instead. I can just imagine him calling on Congress to grow the fuck up and act like adults and then going and kicking the Tea Party caucus in the balls.
Obama told us — ORDERED us — to “hold his feet to the fire.” And when we try to, the rah-rah brigade starts screeching about how we are trying to get the other guy elected.
As Leo said, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I am very resentful that the only possible choice in the Presidential race is between someone who would send armed thugs to break my arms and legs, and someone who is content to break only one leg then leve me to die of hunger and cold on the streets. Neither is a terribly attractive choice, and I refuse to be enthusiastic about having to make it.
It is my duty, as an informed citizen in a democracy, to cast my vote for what I believe to be the best choice for the nation. Sometimes, the best choice is “None of the above.”
@Stephen
Would you consider Jim Crow to be evil? The ‘debate’ isn’t over whether to call it ‘marriage’ vs,. ‘civil union’ because the no one is advocating that straight people’s marriages should suddenly start being called civil unions. Furthermore, ‘civil unions’ do not provide the same rights and privileges that marriage does, which dumps us right back to “separate but equal.” It’s not any less evil to deny civil rights to an arbitrary segment of the population now than it ever was. Furthermore, all of the things that Gregory in Seattle mentioned are things that are explicitly within the President’s authority: HHS is part of the Executive Branch, he could have told Sibelius to make the change instead of castigating her. He could have instructed the judicial branch to not defend DADT and DOMA, and instead he has done the opposite. He is, therefore, acting indistinguishably from an anti-gay bigot, and I’m not going to be shy about calling him on it.
Sorry forgot to close my tags.