Diary and Commentary by tnichlsn.
from an email exchange within the group-
the point is that a large faction of GLBT voters are preaching - "disengage, the system doesn't work, so stop working". We have a President who has completely stepped back and allowed our only chance of gaining equality slip and fumble away. He is our problem. By disengaging politically, we all lose, us, our allies and the kids killing themselves. This diary is/was intended to fire folks up about november and get them back to thinking about supporting our allies. Obama doesn't run for two years, his lumps don't matter. I will remove the top portion of the diary since many of you feel this way. I disagree. Our enemies and those willing to kick our rights down the road to the next session need to be put on notice.
This president repeatedly and unashamedly expresses his belief in separate but equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians, period. end of sentence. And he has done so on numerous occasions.
As I'm sure everyone here knows, Illinois US Senate Candidate Obama was for gay marriage before National US Presidential Candidate Obama was against it. Did he "change his mind" on this issue to appeal to a larger, less GLBT tolerant, religious voting block? Only he knows. I did read somewhere that it is extremely unusual for someone to adopt the more conservative position on social issues like this after advocating a progressive stance. So your call...
from the Windy City Times-
More recently, as Obama has run for higher office, from senator to president, he has further shaped his views on marriage, and now he does not back same-sex marriage. In a January 2004 interview I conducted with Obama at the Windy City Times' office, Obama clearly stated that lack of support for full marriage equality was a matter of strategy rather than principle, but in even more recent comments, it appears he is backing off even further, saying it is more of a religious issue, and also a "state" issue, so he favors civil unions. Both are compromises most gays do not support. First, the U.S. has a separation of church and state, and laws are in place locally and nationally that give benefits based on the very word, "marriage." Therefore, marriage as it is now defined is a government ( both state and federal ) institution that comes with specific financial and social benefits ( taxes, benefits, inheritance, immigration, custody, etc. ) . So, until government eliminates the word "marriage" from state and federal laws, it is a government issue, and that includes the federal government. Obama's answer to the 1996 Outlines question was very clear: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." There was no use of "civil unions," no compromise whatsoever.
marriage equality, meet bus.
≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠
8800;≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠X
00;≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠
;≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠&
#8800;≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley challenges the feds on DOMA on behalf of seven legally married couples here in Massachusetts.
The clock has just about run out on the 6o days given to A.G. Holder's DOJ to answer the Federal Challenge to DOMA by Massachusetts. The President justifies allowing gays and lesbians to twist in the wind on marriage equality by suggesting it is a state's rights issue. So will the President and his DOJ now challenge Massachusetts' decision to finally grant full equality to her gay and lesbian citizens in all matters of marriage rights, like he has said he is in favor of? This ball is currently in the DOJ's court! Mr. President, will you throw your good friend Governor Patrick and his lesbian daughter under a bus on full marriage equality here in MA?
I wonder how you feel Mr. President, about candidates from both political parties quoting your opposition to gay marriage as reason for their own opposition? There have now been a number of them making that their justification for embracing the 'separate but equal' stance. Carly Fiorina for one. As well as the darling of the frontpage here at DK running for senate in Kentucky. Why isn't marriage equality a litmus test for supporting a candidate on a so-called progressive blog? The Gentleman from Kentucky could have kept his answer to himself when asked about DOMA, or better yet he could have stated that he believed it to be a State's Rights issue. But no, he chose to follow the president's lead and throw full marriage equality under the bus. Do the powers that be here at DK have any idea how disheartening it is to have our equality so lightly pushed to the status of inconsequential?
You’re able to brace yourself against the pain caused by enemies slapping you down and trivializing your suffering. Betrayal and indifference by family, friends and colleagues is doubly heartbreaking.
Gay marriage now has reached the critical 50% approval mark in the US in recent polls. Will we have to break the 90% approval barrier before we get marriage equality, like apparently we must do with DADT? Or will it require a full 100% public approval before our friends and enemies alike tire of playing with our lives?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The poll was an afterthought that has crept back in after being deleted in earlier edits. The scale was Ronald Reagan, who thought the deaths of 65-80,000 gays was a funny punchline to a sick joke, to Deval Patrick, who spent significant amounts of political capital supporting marriage equality even before taking office...