Skip to main content

One of my favorite episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm is when Larry seemingly unwittingly falls in and out of favor with the lesbian community.  I think tonight's ragefest about Obama and his gay joke underscores how this kind of stuff really does happen--not just in David's sick (yet hilarious) mind.

So President Obama made a joke tonight about going off to Iowa and getting a gay marriage.

"I tear up a little bit, when I think back to that day when I called Ax and I said, 'You and I can do wonderful things together'. And he said to me the thing partners across America are saying to one another right now: 'Let's go to Iowa and make it official'," Mr. Obama said.

First of all the most important thing to realize is that, for the first time EVER, an openly gay comedian, Wanda Sykes was selected to give the roast.

With that in mind, let's analyze here.

It seems to be that the major argument against it goes something like this:

Obama has abandoned the gay movement, and has reniged on campaign promises and Obama is not doing anything the help support marriage equality

Therefore, he has no right to make this joke

Since I find the conclusion to be the least important, and most divisive part of the argument, let me just analyze the premises.

Has Obama really reniged on his promise to be a President not just for straight people but for all people?

Well le'ts see...

He has made a personal promise to repeal DADT, reaffirming his campaign promise.

Hate Crimes Legislation has passed the House.  If it passes the senate he will sign it.  I imagine he is not a passive bystander here.

Also apparently the HRC seems to think he has a cogent plan to advance the gay rights agenda:

The White House, aware of the discontent, invited leaders of some prominent gay rights organizations to meet Monday with top officials, including Jim Messina, Mr. Obama’s deputy chief of staff, to plot legislative strategy on the hate crimes bill as well as "don’t ask, don’t tell." Among those attending was Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, who said afterward that while the gay rights agenda might not be "unfolding exactly as we thought," he was pleased.

"They have a vision," Mr. Solmonese said. "They have a plan."

So it appears to be unfair to say that he has abandoned his gay rights promises.  In fact, he appears to be making measured steps toward accomplishing everything he set out to do.  Moreover, there are indications that he may be open to changing his position on marriage equality.

While premise true may be true (we really have no clue about how Obama really feels on the subject, as there is so much pretending that politicians have to do about their own perosnal view...see the strikingly small number of atheists in congress as an example)...I submit the best way to convince him to change is not to write posts calling him an offensive fraud.  It's working with groups like the HRC, it's grassroots organizing.  Obama's policy on marriage equality seems to me to be "make me do it".  Make him do it, don't gripe.

P.S.- The biggest thing that Obama can do is appoint a LGBT friendly justice to the SCOTUS.  Let's help him make the right decision.

Originally posted to tiimbitz4786 on Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:17 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for Trying To Talk You Down? (13+ / 0-)

    I know, it never works on Rachel, probably didn't work on you either...but at least now you know the other side

  •  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (8+ / 0-)

    We shouldn't make too much out of this little joke.

    "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:19:58 PM PDT

  •  to appoint an gay associate justice? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    trs

    wow. huge if it's one of those on the lists everybody is sending around.

  •  I really like this (6+ / 0-)

    One problem with all of the "has no right to [blank]" diaries is that they lack vision, they complain but do not take initiative.  You've posted a next step- trying to get a LGBT-friendly justice in the Supreme Court.  

    Before the ball rolls quickly it rolls slowly.

    Once again, Pi is responsible for errors.

    by Novem on Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:20:58 PM PDT

  •  Obama OPPOSES marriage equality. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey, KathleenM1, BFSkinner

    The rest is just promises and speculation.

    I LOVE Obama. He's doing a great job.
    Just next to nothing for us... and
    he OPPOSES marriage equality.

  •  Oh jesus.... (9+ / 0-)

    ...are we questioning whether we just elected a President who, in contrast to the last "President", thinks that every citizen deserves equal rights and equal opportunities. The mere speculation is such nonsense that I am almost, but not quite, speechless. He doesn't need to nominate a "gay" Supreme Court justice. He needs to take us to a place beyond tokenism and I think we are getting very close, if we just stop thinking in these terms. He will end Don't Ask Don't Tell when the time is right (and not before) and look at the equal rights that are blossoming from the Midwest all the way to Maine. There is no QUESTION that we are better off under an Obama presidency and that things are just going to get better. But we have to trust him and his impeccable sense of pace and timing to get where we want to go.

    Let's stop thinking of Sykes as a "lesbian" comic. She's just a funny woman and that is part of her back story.

    When the crowd in Chicago was told that Ohio had flipped for Obama, I was moved as an AMERICAN first, and then, on some other secondary or even tertiary level, as a gay man. I was moved because I believed he was the best hope for our NATION and not because he was going to nominate a "gay" Supreme Court justice. I don't even what a fucking gay Supreme Court justice. I just want a jurist who is smarter than Roberts.....which means a liberal.

    Tonight I'm going to party like it's 1929.

    by Bensdad on Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:27:22 PM PDT

    •  Obama does NOT believe in equal rights for Gays (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      andrewj54, BFSkinner

      and Lesbians!

      He has said repeatedly that he OPPOSES marriage equality.

      I LOVE Obama. But he is dead wrong on marriage equality.

      •  What he says on this issue..... (9+ / 0-)

        ..and what he thinks are very likely two different issues. Number One: You can't --or couldn't--- be for marriage equality and get elected. You did want him to get elected, didn't you? And by not putting every single roadblock -- or any roadblocks-- before the issue he is DOING something.

        As a gay man I most assuredly do NOT want him to pull a Clinton and throw flowers at gays the very first thing. It is political fucking suicide. Right now he needs to do what he can to improve the economy, to improve his power-base, to address our very severe problems. Anything else will look like shameles pandering to a largely despised interest group, which will harm him politically, to our ultimate detriment.

        First rule in chess: Protect your queen, who in this case is male and black. After you slaughter the opponent's men, then you bring her out and let her romp.

        Tonight I'm going to party like it's 1929.

        by Bensdad on Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:33:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, Obama is a hypocrite? (0+ / 0-)
          •  Let's just say that he is more.... (8+ / 0-)

            ...self aware than apparently you were. No, a hypocrite is someone who claims to like women but sneaks off and has sex with men. When Obama came to California he made a statement AGAINST Prop 8 (the anti-same-sex marriage amendment). He just hasn't been willing to throw the weight of the Federal Govt behind this issue and rightly so -- marriage is a STATE matter. The battle for marriage equality will be one in the states. He knows that. I know that. And I hope you realiz that some day too. Just look inside. For once.

            Tonight I'm going to party like it's 1929.

            by Bensdad on Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:37:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  How about capable strategist? (6+ / 0-)

            Perhaps his stated position denies the adversary a target to focus their frenzy upon -- effectively diffusing them -- while the work to gain equality proceeds in an orderly manner.  Just a thought.

            Dance lightly upon the earth, sing her songs with abandon, smile upon all forms of life, and be well.

            by LinSea on Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:54:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Good point. I think Obama is being strategic here (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DontTaseMeBro, LinSea, trs

              Here's a theory. Let's step back from this, and look at the current Judiciary Committee in the Senate. I know it seems unrelated.

              Most recently, Arlen Specter moved to the Democrats, which caused him to lose his ranking status as a Repub in the Judiciary Committee. The new ranking member for the Repubs - is Jeff Sessions - a man who is known for his extremely-conservative stances on everything. Sessions has been accused of racist and bigoted attitudes.  

              So then, if Obama had his hand in this (as some suppose) - Obama could be setting up the Republicans, and putting Sessions in the line of fire. When Senator Sessions questions the nominee, who may be a lesbian, or person of color, Sessions may betray the fact that he himself is a homophobe, or racist, or what-have-you. Then, the Republicans' discrimination becomes more apparent, causing them to look hateful and intolerant. As a result, people see that the Repubs are idiots, and regardless, the nominee would be confirmed because the Dems have the votes.

              If Specter had stayed in the ranking position, things could have been very different for how the Republicans approached all this. Now, Specter can vote yes w/the dems on the Judiciary, and with the broader Senate. Sessions as a result, will become more visible as the bigot that he is.

              "Progress is not automatic; the world grows better because people wish that it should, and take the right steps to make it better." ~ Jane Addams

              by Curiosity on Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:10:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's all political theatre. Obama has to do this (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DontTaseMeBro

                step by step by step. Even though I'd like him to snap his fingers and declare gay marriage tomorrow, I know it's a complex set of situations. I argue my "theory" above because I think Obama is trying to lead with a less homophobic stance (thereby showing trust in gays), and thus he'd be the better man in Washington. For instance, Obama denounced homophobia at that National Holocaust Day of Remembrance--thereby calling out all those who are homophobic. Obama knows that the Repubs would be yelling bloody-murder if he suddenly declared gay marriage as legal. Obama has to do this a bit more slowly by supporting Civil Unions first, and in that process, I think he will be teaching the homophobes a lesson along the way. He is a teacher, if you remember. He can't change the classroom-rules overnight...he has to make these changes gradually (which is unfortunate nonetheless).

                "Progress is not automatic; the world grows better because people wish that it should, and take the right steps to make it better." ~ Jane Addams

                by Curiosity on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:06:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Enough already. Stop the spamming (0+ / 0-)

            and hijacking.

            And to BFSkinner,

            stop uprating comments that are clearly spam from a user who obviously doesn't give a shit about gay equality. At least not on any practical level.

            Can you not see that this user's only goal is to troll diaries on this topic and start flame wars?

            All the repeated one liners should make that clear.

            You don't have to be an atheist to be moral, but it helps.

            by csquared on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:20:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  There's something intriguing about your statement (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          soms

          First rule in chess: Protect your queen, who in this case is male and black. After you slaughter the opponent's men, then you bring her out and let her romp.

          Characterizing Obama as the queen is interesting, but I'd have to ask, Who is the King then? Is your King the victory of equality? I'd like to know.

          Also, I tend to agree with both Bensdad and ExStr8 here. Obama is forced to cater to both sides. If he did give gays marriage and repeal DADT in the first 6 months of his 1st term, the people would question his priorities. Now, I'm not an Obama-apologist here because I also think he needs to do SOMETHING to help the gays, and I think he is doing something with the hate-crimes legislation, and his inviting queer families to the easter egg roll day, and his appointing lots of openly queer folks (40 of them, I believe). But I still think he should do more soon (before the 3rd year of his term, I want him to repeal DADT). Nonetheless, I think his stance on supporting Civil Unions and wanting to repeal DADT says a lot. It changes the atmosphere. It changes the mindset, which is awesome. I'm curious to see where this goes.

          And if he appointed a gay court justice, I know some would view it as tokenism, but I'd still be freaking thrilled all the same.  

          "Progress is not automatic; the world grows better because people wish that it should, and take the right steps to make it better." ~ Jane Addams

          by Curiosity on Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:45:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a bee metaphor (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blackinthebuilding, trs, Curiosity

            Worker bees protect the queen.  And a well applied metaphor as well.

            Another thing you may want to consider on the Civil Union front is how the religiously fervent are hung up on the word.  The conflation of a ceremony performed by the church and one performed by the state is one of the larger bonds that church and state have.  It would be a bold step to recognizing all partnerships as civil unions - and everyone may get bent about it - but it may help to end the argument.

            If people want to say they are married, cool.  But if the state recognizes all as civil unions, then people can put down the anti-gay marriage picket signs and keep their yaps shut.

            It's a word.  And yes, words do matter.  Consideration is the word that should prevail in this case.

            It's not that Bush us dumb...it's that he's arrpgant enough to believe that we are. -- Jon Stewart

            •  What do you mean consideration is the word that (0+ / 0-)

              should prevail? Are you saying I should consider the word "queen" or the word "civil union"? For me, I don't care if we start with "just" Civil Unions, because eventually, this will probably all end up at the Supreme Court (In the form of a challenge to Civil Unions as fair), and the issue THERE is whether the Supreme Court will have enough liberals on it to give the OK to gay marriage when that time comes.  

              "Progress is not automatic; the world grows better because people wish that it should, and take the right steps to make it better." ~ Jane Addams

              by Curiosity on Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:54:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Current status (0+ / 0-)

                Is that's decided at the state level.

                Had GWB gotten it written into the Constitution, that simp would have altered it for his own political purposes.

                So what happens at the federal level if a Civil Union is defined to cover the age limits of all state marriages, while stipulating that it covers same-sex AND "opposite-sex" marriages?

                In this scenario, the word marriage is not the defining term in the eyes of the state.

                It's always seemed to me that the Constitution was written with consideration for all.  Were gays specifically accounted for?  No...but I don't recall that there was any specific language that excluded gays, either.

                It's my opinion AND belief it should remain that way.

                One of the themes of Obama's campaign was "We're all in this together".  It's after eight years of "Y'all are on your own".

      •  He was for it before he was against it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larry Bailey, ricardomath

        Did you know that he supported same-sex marriage before he ran for president?

        Obama Once Supported Same-Sex Marriage 'Unequivocally'

        •  In Illinois - decided at the state level (0+ / 0-)

          And I would suspect he supports gay marriage to currently be decided at the state level.

          If someone running for state office builds his/her entire campaign on issues decided at the federal level...I'd question the people that voted for that individual.  As to whether they were as clueless as the candidate.

      •  With respect ... (0+ / 0-)

        I think your position appears very binary, very either-or.  I think Obama's time in office shows a more nuanced and multilayered person, who deserves better than the declaration that he's OPPOSED TO GAY MARRIAGE.  I don't think he is... his actions and progress on other gay rights areas should be evidence of that.

        Experience teaches only the teachable. -Aldous Huxley // // Alberto Gonzales wore a flag pin, while shredding the constitution.-Anon.

        by DontTaseMeBro on Sun May 10, 2009 at 10:29:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  are you responding to my diary? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      csquared, soms

      which is an attempt to assuage some of the rage?

      b/c if you are...it makes little sense...try going a few diaries down

  •  Sometimes..... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, crankyinNYC, dlh77489, csquared, soms

    I think liberals LOOK for things to complain about - where none are present.

    [eyeroll]

    I don't have "issues". I have a full subscription!

    by GayIthacan on Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:34:46 PM PDT

  •  But the "right time" is now (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey, ExStr8, soms

    We've been waiting too long.  We should have been ahead of the rest of the world on this issue.  We lost a lot of ground during the Bush years, now it's time to catch up.
    It disturbs me that whitehouse.gov removed large amounts of text from their website related to repealing DADT and LGBT issues in general.  I fear he is throwing us to the lions because he wants to get Republicans on board for healthcare reform.  An extremely important issue and one I highly support, but I think he's betting low on a high hand.

    Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. - H.G. Wells

    by Skylarking on Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:39:51 PM PDT

  •  Sorry -- now is not the right time (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soms, trs

    The right time is when the 'bitter' people who cling to their guns or religion get jobs. When people have a roof over their head, food in the frig, and a job to go to, they don't care about who is doing whom --or care less so. Obama is not going to get marriage equality laws passed at the federal level without the states. He doesn't have the political capital or the backing of Congress to do so. State by State is how you do it -- and when you get enough clinks in the armor, then you show your strength.

    •  Or, get it done while "the bitters" are (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larry Bailey

      too distracted by weightier issues to care.  He could make a lot of changes with the stroke of a pen.

      Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. - H.G. Wells

      by Skylarking on Sat May 09, 2009 at 09:58:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not this issue he won't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        soms

        People need jobs -- focus on the economy, which is the best distraction of all. Work at the local and state level to get people to not care who marries whom to make it easier to get it done at a federal level. California is going to have a great domino effect, if the state supreme court rules the right way.

    •  For you, "never" is the only right time (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larry Bailey

      I'm so sick of hearing this argument.  It's not the right time.  It'll never be the right time for people like you.  Look, you don't have to care about equality for gay and lesbian Americans.  I'm sure you're straight, so it's not a personal concern of yours.  But stop trying to tell gay people not to stand up for themselves.  

      You have the same mentality as the people who told MLK to be patient.  If he'd listened to folks like you, we'd still have Jim Crow.  

      •  It is apparent that you can't read since (0+ / 0-)

        I'm telling you to fight smarter! And I stand by what I said and will continue to do so. You don't know anything about me and made very wrong observations. Jim Crow ??? and my sign on is Black in the Building??? STFU

        •  Fighting smarter? (0+ / 0-)

          In case you hadn't noticed, your "strategy" for how to advance marriage equality isn't exactly a news flash.  It's precisely what gay activists have been pursuing for years.  So thanks for the advice, but we poor, benighted gay people somehow figured that one out all on our own years ago.

          As for your sign on, I'm assuming that what it means is that you're African-American (although I concede you haven't said that specifically, so my assumption could be wrong).  Whatever your race or ethnicity may be, my criticism stands.  You're telling gay people to keep waiting for equality.  "Now is not the right time" in your view.  

          Believe me, I've heard that refrain for the past 30 years.  I remember how the 80s were not the "right time" to demonstrate to force the government to do something about the AIDS epidemic.  The tactics of groups like ACT-UP were too confrontational.  They were going to offend heterosexuals.  Of course, had we sat back and accepted the advice of folks like you, we'd have gotten nowhere.  As it was, we brought an issue of supreme importance to the gay community to the forefront of national dialogue.  That's how you create change.  Not by cowering in a corner worrying about the oh-so-delicate sensibilities of straight people.

          As I said before, I'm not asking you to care about this issue.  If you don't believe that equality for gay people is important, that's fine.  If you think it's important, but should only be dealt with after a couple dozen other issues are addressed, that's fine too.  But please stop trying to tell us how to gain our rights.  Some of us have been through this before and have learned a few valuable lessons.  I think we have a better idea of what works for us than you do.  

          •  Whatever (0+ / 0-)

            that's the right attitude to alienate anyone, gay or straight, to support gay marriage. Again, you don't know my background, orientation, what I have or haven't done --but you make poor assumptions. I'm sure that you make those same poor assumptions with people that you interact with -- but yea, keep that 'better idea of what works for us'. You don't even who the fuck us is --

            •  Why so mysterious? (0+ / 0-)

              You appear to be claiming that there's something about your "background, orientation, what [you] have or haven't done" that would be relevant to this discussion, yet you don't disclose what those things are.  Explaining yourself might lend greater clarity to your argument.

              As for who "us" is, I'm speaking of the gay community, of which I am a member.  So I'm well aware of who "we" are.  

              Finally, I'm frankly quite tired of these thinly veiled threats from people like you.  Gay people who demand their rights will "alienate" you, the unspoken consequence of which presumably is that you'll stop "supporting" marriage equality, the repeal of DADT, the passage of ENDA, or whatever.  But the threat is an idle one.  You think that now isn't the right time, that gay people should wait until a time you don't seem to specify, and that at some later date, conditions will be more favorable for reasons that also remain undisclosed.  In short, you're not supporting progress on these matters right now, so "alienating" you will have little effect either way.  

              For me, the choice is easy.  We can move forward now or we can sit around and wait until such time as people like you decide that it is opportune to bestow equality on gay people.  I know which strategy I'm backing.  

    •  Oh good greif! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larry Bailey

      If anything, the focus on the economy makes it easier to gain marriage equality.

      The Republicans look like fools when they try to tell people today that their biggest fear should be teh gays marrin' each other.

      illegal, n. A term used by descendents of European immigrants to refer to descendants of Indigenous Americans

      by ricardomath on Sun May 10, 2009 at 02:09:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's only funny if he was for Gay marriage but he (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey, ExStr8, Ebby

    is not; therefore, the joke is inappropriate and not funny.

    Have you forgotten about jesus? Don't you think it's time that you did?

    by uc booker on Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:05:57 PM PDT

  •  Changing thousands of years of human behavior (3+ / 0-)

    is not an overnight process.  Barack Obama is nothing more than a man, doing the best he can.  Could things be moving faster?  Maybe.  Would I like them to move faster?  Certainly.  

    But as a black, gay man, I also realize the worst thing that could happen for gay rights is a renewal of the rancorous debate circa 2004.  It seems to me Barack Obama is being methodical about this, he is trying to pull an entire country along with him.  And to be real here, a president "paying lip-service" (or speaking out against ignorance and hatred toward gay people) is quite an improvement from his preceding 43 brethren.

    Ann Compton to President Obama at next presser: "Is it true that once you go black, you can never go back?" Obama: "WTF?"

    by dlh77489 on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:01:30 PM PDT

  •  It Would Be Different - (1+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    KathleenM1
    Hidden by:
    DontTaseMeBro, csquared

    If Obama had acted in any way proactively for GLBTIQ people.

    He used Donnie McClurkin to up his numbers among Black evangelicals.
    He rubbed our noses in shit with the Rick Warren invocation.
    He didn't have the cojones to say a fucking thing about Prop 8.
    And he's backtracked and found all kinds of excuses for DADT.

    Would you like to hear the joke about two perfectly good n-----s?

    •  Irrational and offensive. You're quiet the catch. (1+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      DontTaseMeBro
      Hidden by:
      johnnygunn

      You don't have to be an atheist to be moral, but it helps.

      by csquared on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:31:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What's Offensive - (0+ / 0-)

        Are all the people who think it's perfectly alright for a person who is not gay and who has utilized some profoundly anti-gay people to advance his numbers to joke about the fundamental human rights of gay people.

        Unless you have forgotten, McClurkin advocated war on gay people.
        Unless you have forgotten, Prop 8 may have invalidated many marriages.
        Did your precious Pres. Obama talk about going to California????

        Obama's joke is no different that blackface.
        I don't recall LBJ joking about blacks getting to vote in Alabama.
        Why not?  Because it wasn't a joking matter.

        You are quite the bigot.

        •  Thanks for proving my point. (0+ / 0-)

          You don't have to be an atheist to be moral, but it helps.

          by csquared on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:48:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Isn't It Rather Prurient - (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Larry Bailey

            For a Canadian to be so intrusive?
            When I go to Canada, I don't go around telling Canadians how lousy their roads are.

            And I apologize for making the LBJ comment.
            You weren't even around when the Civil Rights Movement was going on,
            let alone in the same country.

            It's sad when someone with so little knowledge and experience inserts him or herself into a situation that he or she should have the sense and courtesy to stay out of.

            Have you lived on either side of the segregation barrier?
            Have you had your life threatened because you were gay?

            Like I said - prurient.

            •  Your "knowledge" leaves something to be desired. (0+ / 0-)

              Just Like Liberace - (2+ / 8-)

              Recommended by:
                 indycam, NearlyNormal
              Hidden by:
                 mole333, GN1927, corvo, ThatSinger, happy camper, roycej, fromdabak, Karl Rover

              I'm laughing all the way to the voting booth.

              Hey, darling.
              The way things are looking, Obama ain't gonna win Virginia.  And with the Kilpatrick scandal and Granholm's unpopularity, Obama may lose Michigan as well.  Oh, and I forgot!  Axelrod said that Obama didn't need Ohio or Pennsylvania either.

              Such thinking is the recipe for electoral disaster.
              And to be perfectly honest -
              As nasty as Obama supporters have been -
              I don't know if I really care.

              by johnnygunn on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 12:41:58 AM EDT

              Check out these latest results from the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll. Hillary is surging! That's nearly where she was at after New Hampshire, and the Florida bump hasn't even happened yet. This bodes very well for Feb 5.

              You're just an ignorant jackass with a track record to prove it.

              Still bitter about HRC losing the primary to Obama and your embarrassing predictions to the contrary?

              Well get over it, asshole!

              And spare me the insanity. We Canadians tend to be more rational.

              It took us a long time to convince our politicians that gay marriage was necessary. But we did it, and it wasn't by throwing an embarrassing hissy fit.

              You don't have to be an atheist to be moral, but it helps.

              by csquared on Sun May 10, 2009 at 12:21:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  My, My, My Again - - (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Larry Bailey

                For somebody who likes to troll-rate others,
                You sure do like to toss out the hateful language.

                And talking about rational 0 0

                We Canadians tend to be more rational.

                Irrational - and bigoted.
                Do all Canadians still live in igloos?
                Because that is about the same as your statement.

                Oh, and did you have a good time going thru my comments?  You'll also notice that I posted a diary congratulating the Obama folks after the NC primary.
                And I did do a pretty, fucking good job predicting the collapse of oil prices that I just happened to post on the morning prices started to nosedive.

                And in the above comment - I got three out of four.
                Last I remember Obama won Virginia.
                But he lost Michigan, Ohio, and Penna.

                Yes, I supported HRC and was trolled mercilessly for doing so.  And, if you remember, there were Edwards diaries on the rec list every day extolling the poll movements for their guy.

                When you get over your prejudice against Queer people, you may be able to see things with a broader mind.

    •  No, I don't want to hear any jokes like that. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sberel, TheLoneliestMonk, csquared

      I can't believe I'm seeing this on DailyKos.

      "Progress is not automatic; the world grows better because people wish that it should, and take the right steps to make it better." ~ Jane Addams

      by Curiosity on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:37:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Believe - (0+ / 0-)

        That Obama's "joke" was equally offensive.
        At least I didn't tell it.

        The reference is there to indicate the degree of lack of sensitivity that Obama demonstrated tonight.

        And I don't care that there many be some gay people who say they were not bothered by it.  Many of us were.  Of course, by your logic - - that's O.K.  Who cares if 5% of Americans feel patronized and humiliated.  We're used to it - right?

        •  Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          churchylafemme, DontTaseMeBro

          I just saw it differently than some people. In the joke, Obama was casting himself as gay, aligning himself with "us" (the gays, etc). On one level, I'm glad he worked this into the conversation because it shows that he's following the gay situation. Now of course, we can approach this little statement of his from a thousand angles, and I encourage everyone to debate it. And I'm saddened that some people are annoyed because of his comment. I understand why they would take offense (although I don't see it that way). But I did not appreciate your way of responding to it. I don't want to hear jokes where people use racially-offensive terms. Obama didn't say f*ggot did he?  Why do you have to bring up offensive terms like n----r?  

          "Progress is not automatic; the world grows better because people wish that it should, and take the right steps to make it better." ~ Jane Addams

          by Curiosity on Sat May 09, 2009 at 11:57:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because, If You Are Old Enough to Remember - (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Larry Bailey

            That was one of the standard jokes told among many whites during the civil rights era, even the so-called "liberal" ones - and everybody was expected to laugh along.  It's not the "n----" word, but the context.  A joke that is patronizing, told by someone who has never experienced the condition joked about.  In that sense, they are very much the same.

            •  I just have to disagree and perhaps it's because (0+ / 0-)

              my values are different than yours, but in the future, I ask you, please don't wantonly throw around questions like the one you said above. It incites anger and disgust in people very easily, and I would rather see my fellow kossacks use better forms of persuasion.

              "Progress is not automatic; the world grows better because people wish that it should, and take the right steps to make it better." ~ Jane Addams

              by Curiosity on Sun May 10, 2009 at 12:08:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry - (0+ / 0-)

                But the joke came off to me - EXACTLY - as the joke I referenced.

                And what exactly are your values.
                I marched for civil rights.
                I demanded freedom for the Wilmington 10.
                I protested the whitewash of the Greensboro Massacre.

                What were you doing?
                Were your values "different" (I suspect you mean "better") then?

                Sorry, when leading Queer and liberal columnists and leaders are calling into question Obama's commitment to GLBTIQ advocacy, it's not exactly the right time to joke about marriage equality.

              •  And If You Deconstruct Language and Gestures - (0+ / 0-)

                Dubya loved to assert power and control by giving people nicknames and by touching them in overly familiar ways.

                Everyone knows the "Huckuva job, Brownie!" quote.
                Turd Blossom for Karl Rove.
                Squeezing Chancellor Angela Merkel's shoulder.

                Humor is used similarly - especially when used by those other than the group which is the target of the humor when there is a power imbalance.  It would hard to argue that in relation to the issue of legal marriage - that there is not a significant power imbalance between hetero and GLBTIQ people.  And there is a power imbalance between the POTUS and the highest elected officials who are openly gay - Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, and newly-elected Jared Polis.

                One cannot ever know the motives for a jokesters words; however, Obama's track record on gay issues has been rather lukewarm.  So that makes it even dicier.  Given the fact that Obama has said not one word about Prop 8 since he was elected and it was passed - and how many marriages may be voided and how many more are no longer possible - it seems highly out of place to joke in this manner.

                What the joke says to me and many others is -
                "Chill out, it's not that big of a deal."
                And, by joking about it, he gives a big green light to all.

    •  Check your rudeness at the door bro. (0+ / 0-)

      You keep crossing the line.  I hate HR's, but you're seriously disrespectful.  Can't we talk about the issues and have disagreements without name calling and provocation?

      Experience teaches only the teachable. -Aldous Huxley // // Alberto Gonzales wore a flag pin, while shredding the constitution.-Anon.

      by DontTaseMeBro on Sun May 10, 2009 at 10:44:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wait a Friggin' Minute - (0+ / 0-)

        I used "n-----s" with the middle letters removed.
        I used it as a reference point to show how utterly patronizing and demeaning jokes like the ones in the past and Obama's are.

        The other blogger used terms like "asshole" and "jackass" -
        Because he and you refuse to acknowledge the ugliness of Obama's humor.

        I'll tell you who is rude - it's Pres. Obama.
        He jokes about marriage for gay people when he hasn't said a friggin' thing about Prop 8.  And if you don't think that had an impact - consider Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon.  Together more than 50 years, finally married in 2004 only to have that disallowed.  

        Del is 83 years old and I am 79. After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time.

        http://farm4.static.flickr.com/...

        Married again in 2008 only to have that overturned by Prop 8.  For Obama, whose own parents married before the Loving v Virginia ruling, there is more than a modicum of irony here.

        AND I'M THE ONE BEING DISRESPECTFUL??

        I'll tell you who is being disrespectful.
        It's a president who mocks something that he takes for granted.
        And it's all the people who defend it here.

  •  "renege", not "renige" nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey

    John Galt is the new Walter Mitty.

    by Bob Love on Sun May 10, 2009 at 12:14:31 AM PDT

  •  I thought the joke was funny (0+ / 0-)

    And I haven't been a big fan of Obama when it comes to GLBT issues - especially marriage equality.  I've been watching him closely since he ran for the senate here.  Compared to Alan Keyes he was the gay messiah - but that would be true of almost anyone running against Keyes.

    My impression, based at least partly on discussions I had with some HRC people here at that time, was that he was basically ok with GLBT people and didn't oppose our issues - but that we simply weren't one of his major priorities.  Thus when he believed it made sense politically he could "compromise" on our issues (in favor of civil unions, not marriage).  The advice "make him do it" is probably the best I've heard.  He won't stand in our way, he'll even sign up as a supporter when it makes political sense.  But we're going to have to lead the way.

    •  I agree with "make him do it", but... (0+ / 0-)

      ...he realy does need to knock it off with this Civil Union crap.

      illegal, n. A term used by descendents of European immigrants to refer to descendants of Indigenous Americans

      by ricardomath on Sun May 10, 2009 at 10:25:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site