|
|
May 21, 2013
|
|
|
|
 A Whiff of ‘Hope and Change’Posted on May 10, 2012President Obama’s evolutionary leap on same-sex marriage is a historic advance in the nation’s long march toward equality and justice. It is also a bold political gambit that sacrifices some votes in exchange for potentially renewing his image as a leader of vision and hope. The truth is that it should not have taken Obama so long to recognize that gays and lesbians should have the right to marry. I’m one of the many observers who never understood how his former opposition to same-sex marriage could be squared with the worldview that emerged from his speeches and actions. It seemed incongruous to me that someone who so valued fairness and inclusiveness would have such a blind spot. Nor do I understand Obama’s criteria for deciding that his “evolving” view on gay marriage had finally completed its transformation. Was it only half-baked, say, a month ago? Ultimately, however, history will care only that Obama was the first president to acknowledge that same-sex marriage is a national issue involving the civil rights of millions of Americans. The astonishment and joy expressed by so many gays and lesbians nationwide following Obama’s announcement Wednesday showed what a big deal this is. We all know where this is heading. Obama said that while he now supports same-sex marriage, the decision should be left up to the states. That would seem to bode ill, since 30 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit gay marriage; on Tuesday, North Carolina voters overwhelmingly approved such an amendment, with 61 percent voting to ban same-sex marriage versus 39 percent who opposed the measure. Advertisement Moreover, polls show a clear generational divide: Americans under 40 approve of gay marriage by a big margin. This explains the rush to amend state constitutions, in what amounts to a King Canute-like attempt to hold back the actuarial tide. But same-sex marriage is already allowed in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia. As more and more couples wed, courts around the country will have to rule on questions involving marriages that are recognized in some states but not in others. It may be a long, tangled process, but eventually a day will come when same-sex marriage is considered unexceptional and only historians appreciate that once upon a time it was controversial. Obama’s pronouncement hastens that day. It also has shorter-term implications. It seems clear that his position on gay marriage will cost Obama some support in what promises to be a tough battle for re-election. The crucial impact will be in the swing states. North Carolina, for example, is a former Republican stronghold that Obama won in 2008. Will the people who voted so decisively against same-sex marriage be motivated to vote against Obama in November? Some will, undoubtedly. But it was interesting that Obama’s all-but-certain GOP opponent, Mitt Romney, reacted to the president’s shift on gay marriage with a relatively subdued statement reiterating his opposition but acknowledging that the issue is a “tender and sensitive topic.” The risk for Romney is that while his position—he wants a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage—is popular among Republican primary voters, it might be seen as mean-spirited and punitive by the independents who will ultimately decide the election. Politically, Obama may have taken a big step toward reclaiming the future. The magic of hope and change that suffused his 2008 campaign has dissipated after 40 grueling months in office. Obama’s supporters could point to his accomplishments and cite the reasons why Romney would be a poor replacement, but the optimism and excitement were missing. Obama could have kept silent on gay marriage, and frustrated progressives still would have voted for him. Instead, he spoke out when he didn’t have to and took a stance that might hurt him in key states—in the process reminding us of how he can surprise and inspire. Did I just catch a whiff of that hopey-changey stuff in the air?
 TAGS:
|
Too Soon to Tell: The Case for Hope, Continued
 . '/' . substr('9780316736091',-6,3) . '/' . '9780316736091' . '.jpg'; ?>)
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Gforce23, May 14, 2012 at 12:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
John Poole:
O.K, then if one of you’re kids turns out to be gay, you should hand him or her over to a nice gay and lesbian couple. After all, if gays and lesbians can only raise gay kids, then it’s only fair that ‘straight’ couples raise only straight kids, right? Why wait for science…
Report thisBy Alan MacDonald, May 13, 2012 at 7:16 am Link to this comment
Yes! It’s indeed encouraging to see many more videos, articles, and posters at td and many other progressive truth sites openly talking about confronting the Empire—- which can best be accomplished through participating in the “Occupy Empire” movement this ‘Summer 2012 of Real Revolution”, instead of being fooled by another Fall of Obama’s deceitful promises of useless ‘hope for never coming change’ and phony scams of deceit, depression, detention, and wars of destruction.
Yes, the Green Party offers a real chance to save and improve this former country of ours——and Jill Stein is openly and overtly running on a platform “Against Empire”.
The unfortunate reality, that neither the Obama-robot nor the Romney-robot of EMPIRE will ever mention or even whisper is that the corporate/financial/militarist and media EMPIRE, the DGE (Disguised Global Empire), which now has ‘captured’ and fully “Occupies” our former country by hiding behind the facade of its modernized two-party ‘Vichy’ sham of faux-democratic and totally illegitimate government—- is just like the earlier and crude single party ‘Vichy’ party in France tried to hide the Nazi EMPIRE.
But with the Occupy movement now progressing to “Occupy Empire” demonstrations and organizing massive “Occupy the Empire” protests through its revised ‘new strategy’ for election impact in summer 2012, by focusing on educating and energizing the real mass of the 99% to “Occupy Empire”, the Green Party’s Anti-Empire solidarity will drive a massive push by all the anti-war, anti-Wall Street, anti-corporate, pro-environmental and pro-people voters to be able to really ‘change’ the system—- which is something that was never possible with either the stealth and smoothly lying Secret Agent 008, Obama, working for the Disguised Global Empire behind our back, or for the obvious and proto-fascist Romney robot working for the very same Disguised Global Empire (but without wearing as good a mask of deceit as the Obama ‘whore of the Empire’ puppet).
Here’s video of Miichael Parenti, professor and author of the leading educational and revolutionary 1995 book “Against Empire”—- as he educates college student about the fast growing masses of informed middle/working-class Americans who are swelling the ranks of 2012’s “Occupy Empire”—- Summer of Real Change.
http://dandelionsalad.wordpres…
Best luck and love to the “Occupy
Empire” educational and revolutionary movement.
Liberty, democracy, & justice
Over
Violent/Vichy
Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Report thisSanford, Maine
By Steve E, May 12, 2012 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment
It’s the economy stupid. You might even concentrate on stopping never ending
Report thiswars or stopping the murder of innocent civilians by collateral murder. Gay issues
and women’s issues are diversions.
By blogdog, May 12, 2012 at 11:38 am Link to this comment
RE: So why should the PotUS in an election year go out on a limb on such a
divisive question?
what better wedge issue is currently available?
MY point: avoid any issue of empire and its waring legacy; TPTB want no discussion that includes the word EMPIRE… the subversive nature of even hinting at this notion is virtually treasonous in the Capitalists’ Paradise, where everyone’s bought; everyone’s sold and the bottom-line motto is GO FOR THE GOLD!
Report thisBy americanme, May 12, 2012 at 10:23 am Link to this comment
WooGas: You are a hopeless addicted.
Addicted to voting for the very folks who have told you repeatedly to bend over and spread ‘em.
Is that what this gay marriage distraction is all about?
Report thisBy WooGas1, May 12, 2012 at 10:09 am Link to this comment
There really is nothing worth arguing about in the Presidents statement, yes, he waffled a bit but he finally came around to a statement in support of freedom. What stuck me is the bipolar nature of the comments. Yay! Boo!. This President promised many things, I had HOPE, I expected CHANGE. Now I am stuck with the realization that he, too is just a politician. Freedom is now my party, it seems to be a party of one. Liberals would ban freedom to chose what I eat, smoke, write and how I chose to defend my home. Conservatives would chose what I can say, think, what I believe (not believing isn’t an option) and most other personal decisions would be decided for me.
Report thisFreedom means that one gets to make his own decisions, if they cause no harm to others. The freedom to do it the party way is not freedom. Think about anything you hear that starts with “there aughta be a law” chances are that no, there shouldn’t.
I will vote for Obama again, not because he is the best person, the best person isn’t running, and none of us have heard his name because the best person hasn’t made the deal. I will vote for Obama because he still says some of the right things, and I chose gullibility over being, or voting for, a fool.
By blueburner, May 12, 2012 at 8:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
This was not the most pressing issue facing 99% of the country today and Obama’s
viewpoint is somewhat meaningless since he conceded all authority to the
individual states.
It would be a far braver and more appreciated announcement that in light of the
Report thisbanks’ criminal behavior, he can’t condone punishing the victims any longer by,
say, garnishing seniors’ soc security checks and taxing uncollectable credit card
debt in the great hunt for revenue to fund the Military.
By Lafayette, May 12, 2012 at 3:57 am Link to this comment
SOME ARE NEVER SATISFIED
Why’s that, ER? Maybe you’ve had an epiphany regarding the matter, but many Americans are not sure. In fact, there is no conclusive evidence that a majority presently favors gay marriage. See here.
Poll results show pretty much 50/50 on the issue.
So why should the PotUS in an election year go out on a limb on such a divisive question? It is courageous of him for what he did even if tardy. But it will piss off as many people as it much as it may please gays - so as regards voting outcomes, it’s neutral.
In fact, there is far more conclusive evidence that, whilst Americans do believe in equal-rights for gays who live together, they are far less favorable as regards legalization of gay marriage.
MY POINT?
Tell us, ER - can BO do anything right in your eyes? Methinks not.
Report thisBy John Poole, May 11, 2012 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Greetings Americanme: I too have an issue with the institution of marriage. I’m
Report thismarried (civil service with a cracker jacks box ring by a JP in Calabasas county and
was a sperm nozzle for two offspring. My wife and I enjoy life together but it has
nothing to do with confirmation by the state or church. I don’t understand the
desire to be married with both straights or gay. There are legal ramifications of
course so we need to redefine these sexual couplings in an intelligent manner.
But I would not sanction a gay couple raising or adopting a hetero child. Raising a
certifiable (that will most likely be possible with scientific advances in the future!)
gay kid then fine.
By americanme, May 11, 2012 at 1:39 pm Link to this comment
I am against marriage of all kinds.
This is not the 14th century, where folks marry to produce 14 children needed to work the fields—half of which will die.
And marriage ALWAYS brings out the worst in both parties.
Report thisBy gerard, May 11, 2012 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment
“... an evolutionary leap”?? Mr. Robinson, what can you be thinking! Don’t the radical right-wingers hate Obama enough, without bringing “evolution” into it?
Report thisBy blogdog, May 11, 2012 at 9:25 am Link to this comment
RE: Divisions of property and the sharing of rights and benefits are matters of
the state.
Indeed - church property and income should be taxed - congregations meeting
Report thisunder the stars, sheltering and feeding their leaders in private homes need not
worry of being taxed
By Marc Schlee, May 11, 2012 at 7:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
*******
A Vote of Confidence Amendment will give voters the leverage to hold the people we elect to their promises by creating the mechanism to fire them when they lie.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
Report this*******
By thecrow, May 11, 2012 at 5:41 am Link to this comment
“reminding us of how he can surprise and inspire”
Haven’t forgotten.
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/forgive-and-forgetforget/
Imagine my surprise.
Report thisBy IMax, May 11, 2012 at 4:15 am Link to this comment
Same-sex marriage is not an issue of civil rights. Every culture on earth observes that marriage is a ceremony of religion between a man and a woman. Forcing the vast majority to alter their core beliefs in spirituality is abhorrent. - Authoritarian.
State governments should end the practice of issuing “marriage licenses” and, in stead, issue certificates of “civil unions” with all the legal rights and privileges afforded by law. If a particular church or culture then wishes to marry two people under the auspices of it’s doctrine or charter, so be it.
This solution I propose also speaks to the issues of separation of church and state. Marriage is an issue for each individual church or religion. Divisions of property and the sharing of rights and benefits are matters of the state.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, May 11, 2012 at 3:19 am Link to this comment
Anyone who has been married and divorced know that marriage is nothing more than a contractural arrangement.
You break the terms of the contract, you pay.
Report thisBy blogdog, May 11, 2012 at 1:31 am Link to this comment
Robinson outdoes himself: Ultimately, however, history will care only that Obama was the first president to acknowledge that same-sex marriage is a national issue involving the civil rights of millions of Americans.
I kept reading, anticipating paradoxical irony, but didn’t get it…
no, no, no… nothing in history about 50-k souls perished in Libya from the NATO genocidal bombing at the behest of its most vicious troika to date: CAMERUIN, SHARKOZY, OBOMBER, in service to their oligarchical taskmasters on Wall Street and in the City of London
sorry, Eugene, you are so wrong - that’s Berry’s legacy and this is only the ‘wedge issue’ diversion, gratuitously tossed out for campaign debate, so there will be no discussion of wars and multitudes of perished innocents - get real, you chicken shit!
Report thisBy mrfreeze, May 10, 2012 at 11:13 pm Link to this comment
Jesus H. Christ….............the Media fetish with this “evolutionary” decision by the president has gotten old really fast.
The only thing more annoying is reading all worthless, hateful commentary about what a “bad guy” Obama is on these boards. Many of you need to get a life. Or better yet, why don’t you channel all your anger and negativity at the real enemies: the banks, the uber-capitalists, the plutocrats. You’ve allowed yourselves (and the Media is more than happy to help you) to be distracted by fixating on the president.
Report thisBy Steve E, May 10, 2012 at 10:40 pm Link to this comment
“potentially renewing his image as a leader of vision and hope”, you got to be
Report thiskidding. Does that include adding and abetting banksters and corporate criminals
again and again. Leader of vision and hope my butt.