Skip to main content

View Diary: Brendan Eich and Tolerance (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't buy this (6+ / 0-)
    President Obama did not support gay marriage at first, but finally came out in favor of it in 2012 because he came to a better understanding of what we need to stand for.
    He knew what was right, but staked his position for political purposes, just as he changed that position for the same reason.  I think it is naive- at best- to think that Obama, as a constitutional law professor, did not see the moral and legal failings of his separate, but equal position.  Let's be honest here.
    •  That that kind of jumped out at me, too (0+ / 0-)

      And I'm a seriously intense Obama supporter.  I think he had the right heart, but felt he couldn't endorse marriage equality in 2008.  

      I guess I'm okay with that, seeing as how Lincoln wasn't willing or able to acknowledge that the Civil was about slavery until we were two years into it, and, even then, the Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" the slaves in the states that were in rebellion, i.e., not a single slave was granted his or her freedom until 1865.

      •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

        It's acceptable for a president to deny and oppose the legal equality of a group of American citizens ...because Lincoln?  
        Are you serious?

        •  No, just pointing out political reality for (0+ / 0-)

          both of them.  FDR and JFK were very weak on Civil Rights because they needed Southern Democrats, who were literally violently opposed to legal equality for blacks, to get elected.  And LBJ admitted that that national Democratic Party being the one largely responsible for Civil Rights legislation would lose the South for a generation.  Turns out now to have been two generations, and it doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon.  Oh, and Johnson decided not to run rather than not be re-elected (although the case could be made that was as much about Vietnam as it was about Civil Rights).

          Grown-ups recognize that in this country, you can't be a pure-of-heart firebrand and get elected.  And if you can't get elected, you can't change anything.  And Obama's record on GLBT rights since he was elected is quite good.

          I'd also say that it's not the correct characterization of either Lincoln or Obama's position as "deny[ing] and oppose[ing] the legal equality of a group of American citizens."  In both cases, they did nothing like that.  They were less than fervent champions, but they certainly didn't support what the other side was doing.

      •  Presidential power was limited in the 1860's (0+ / 0-)

        Lincoln could only free black people in the confederate states because of his powers as commander in chief. A similar order for the union would have unconstitutional.

        Lenin Cat says "In soviet Russia Cat chases Dog"

        by DanceHallKing on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 10:20:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  To me, that is even worse... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KathleenM1, dallasdunlap, Samulayo

      it's one thing to truly believe something but it is really despicable to lie about what you believe for personal gain.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site