Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 31, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Report Criticizes EPA Oversight of Injection Wells






Truthdig Bazaar
The Case for Big Government

The Case for Big Government

By Jeff Madrick
$15.61

more items

 
Report

Hope and Hesitation in Obama’s Sudden Conversion

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 10, 2012
AP/Ben Margot

Jase Peeples, at a bar in San Francisco, watches a television broadcast of President Obama declaring his support for same-sex marriage.

By Robert Scheer

Once again President Barack Obama has come tantalizingly close to being terrific. But his failure of courage on the gay marriage issue, in the end, undermined the point he hoped to make Wednesday. As with his prior rhetorical flashes of principle in denouncing torture, commiserating with the victims of Wall Street fraud and resolving to end unjustifiable wars, he quickly waffled and the result was a continuation of that which is fundamentally wrong.

There is only one essential point to be made about gay marriage: To acknowledge one’s own sexual being and to define the relationships that follow is a basic human right. How dare anyone intrude on a life choice that is not his to make for others? Whether the president’s family knows gay couples who are monogamous and nice to their children has no more to do with the issue than the old argument of enlightened racists in the American South that there were many fine Negroes who were not at all uppity.

Uppity as in the case of gays who were not satisfied with Obama’s prior endorsement of civil unions: “I had hesitated on gay marriages in part because I thought that civil unions would be sufficient.” As in knowing your place and being content with the bone you are tossed rather than demanding the full meal you’re entitled to.

There is enormous condescension in Obama’s assertion that “I’ve always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally.” He had not been adamant enough to push for an amendment to the Civil Rights Act to end discrimination based on sexual orientation. Nor did he issue an executive order banning government agencies from contracting with businesses guilty of such discrimination.

Surely one could not have always been in favor of fairness and equality and yet succumbed to pressure from those who claimed that allowing gays to marry was somehow ungodly. “I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, the word ‘marriage’ was something that invokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs,” Obama told us, as if sensitivity is admirable when the bigots hide behind cultural norms.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
So too did the word “slavery” invoke powerful religious beliefs for the American slaveholders who frequently cited Scripture as endorsing their degenerate oppression of others. The deciphering of divine intention that is so common among today’s anti-gay fanatics is exemplified by a statement made Tuesday by Tami Fitzgerald, the chairwoman of the successful North Carolina campaign to ban gay marriage under that state’s constitution: “...  you don’t rewrite the nature of God’s design for marriage. ...” 

No, what you don’t do is selectively cite Scripture to justify denying basic freedoms to your fellow citizens. That’s precisely why our federal Constitution bans the governmental establishment of any religion.

Failure to insist on an inviolable freedom for all Americans is the key weakness in the position that Obama stated in his carefully scripted interview with ABC News on Wednesday. He not only didn’t embrace a federal guarantee of the human rights of homosexuals, he endorsed the notion that the matter is one to be decided by the states, such as North Carolina, where the Democrats will hold their national convention in September. Since the voters of that state have now decided to deny gay people their rights, it would seem logical for the Democrats to refuse to hold their convention in such a retrograde environment. Perhaps if Obama’s opinion had evolved just a few days earlier he might have successfully made an argument to North Carolinians before they voted in the Tuesday referendum that produced a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions.

The host state of the 2012 Democratic National Convention boasts of being on the cutting edge of scientific innovation, but it is mired in the swamp of primitive religious dogma. Let’s never forget that invocations of “God’s design” have historically been an invitation to religious pogroms and genocide. Only this time, as Obama’s sudden conversion suggests, the forces of intolerance just might be in decline.

The good news is that young voters have returned to the sanity of the nation’s Founders and are unwelcoming of the government’s imposing its will on their pursuit of happiness. Surely Obama was mindful that the gay marriage issue is trending sharply in that direction, and certainly his response is a reason for optimism among those fighting against second-class citizenship for gays.

A prediction that Obama’s shift will lead to deep and lasting change for the nation was offered by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an equally skilled political trend spotter: “No American president has ever supported a major expansion of civil rights that has not ultimately been adopted by the American people, and I have no doubt that this will be no exception.” From the mayor’s lips to God’s ears.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: What the China Crisis (and His Gay Crisis) Revealed About Mitt

Next item: The Energy Wars Heat Up



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Ehrenstein, May 14, 2012 at 4:58 am Link to this comment

“nding blatant and easily refuted fraud does not advance the cause of marriage equality but only damages the integrity of your own Community.”

Says tha man advancing Fraud. Advancing “separate but equal” is your game. Go play it with the other fascists.

Report this

By Arouete, May 13, 2012 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment

Sorry Ehrenstein but you tell on yourself by marching in lockstep too much a coward to speak truth to lies that serve your own agenda. Defending blatant and easily refuted fraud does not advance the cause of marriage equality but only damages the integrity of your own Community.  Every goose-stepping ‘true believer’ like you who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what they do is morally indefensible. As a member of the LGBT community I have no respect for mindless ‘fellow travelers’ who believe that lies and falsehood advance our cause.

The full extent of your troll tracks here demonstrate an infantile ‘na na na na na’ and childish stick-your-tongue out at every solid argument your pea-shooter brain can’t refute.  But I’ll not waste my time arguing with an idiot for the best outcome one can hope for is to win an argument with an idiot. Off to bed with you little one.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 13, 2012 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment

It’s always amusing to have a Nazi quote Goebbels to you.

Report this

By Arouete, May 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment

Ehrenstein: “We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter.” Diderot

Report this

By Arouete, May 13, 2012 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

Gee wiz Ehrenstein, what’s the mater?  The factual truth, beyond any reasonable doubt,that you’ve just been had by a smooth-talking politician hustler and a pack of sycophant journalist too lazy and full of themselves to do anything but take dictation, the fact that you have taken to tainted bait hook-line-and-sinker is too much for you?

You prove the dogma of Joseph Goebbels who knew that ““If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Such lies must be crammed down your throat because “truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” 

Like his Nazi compatriot Herman Goering he understood that “it is the leaders of the country who [with the collaboration of the propagandists who call themselves journalists]  determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Ah yes, since you lack the courage stomach the message you march in lock-step and attack the messenger. Unfortunately this factual truth so well-documented on the Internet that a high school sophomore could vet the lie in five google minutes. But I understand, it’s so much easier to goose-step and sop at the propaganda trough.

Sorry little goose-stepping troll grow up. Instead of attacking the truth-tellers go call-out the lying politicians and propagandists who filled your head with preposterous fairy tales to get you to open your wallet. Now off to bed with you little one and don’t let the bogeyman truth disturb your sleeping reason.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 13, 2012 at 6:15 am Link to this comment

You’re the one munching crumbs, Aroute. From the RNC’s table.

Report this

By Arouete, May 13, 2012 at 2:54 am Link to this comment

“Sudden conversion? Evolved? Really? Here here is an update for the slogan-swallowers who don’t have a clue how to vet the propaganda spoon-fed to them. Obama finally talked it over recently with his wife and kids? Please.  People chomp at this tainted bait? Is there a journalist alive in American who can vet the propaganda spoon fed to them? Clearly not.

In detail: in a 1996 statement he said ‘I FAVOR LEGALIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGES’. Outlines newspaper and the new Windy City Times (Chicago Gay papers) surveyed candidates for all levels of elected office and summarized the results in a 1996 article by Trudy Ring, but did not list exact answers to questions. In that article Outlines did note that Obama WAS A SUPPORTER OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE; that article was never challenged or corrected by Obama. 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.

IMPACT, which was Chicago’s main LGBT political action committee for several years, surveyed Obama and other candidates. The IMPACT marriage question was a bit less direct but it asked if Obama would support a Marriage Resolution being considered at the time, which read in part “BECAUSE MARRIAGE IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT AND AN INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL CHOICE, RESOLVED, THE STATE SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH SAME-GENDER COUPLES WHO [ CHOOSE ] TO MARRY AND SHARE FULLY AND EQUALLY IN THE RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES AND COMMITMENT OF CIVIL MARRIAGE.” Obama responded: “I WOULD SUPPORT SUCH A RESOLUTION.”

He flip-flopped in 2004 when it was no longer in his best interest to support us AND even though Cheney came out in favor of such state’s right!

“Evolved”? This information and much, much more has always been freely available online. Who has reported it? Whisk, whisk. Goodbye to all that. History is bunk. “Evolved? Rubbish!

Then, when he did not need our money so badly integrity suffered a different political expediency. Now when our money matters again he has an evolutionary epiphany. My my. What a miracle! Pulease. Give me a break. And he only did this because his feet were held to the fire.

Nor did he offer us even a half a loaf for Dick Cheney offered that eight years ago. Obama now serves us Cheney’s left-over crumbs for which we are supposed to grovel in thanks?  Big deal. And he only did that AFTER he (falsely!) made it clear to the states religious factions they had the legal right to deny this ‘fundamental’ FEDERAL right purely for reasons of religion. THESE ARE NOT OPINIONS BUT FACTS. The consequences of those facts have (thanks to him) given the voters in state after state the impetus to vote against secular rights for religious reasons and thereby cause immeasurable pain and differing.

I will leave others to kiss and wash the feet they should be holding to the fire and do hope they enjoy the crumbs. What they should be doing is holding his feet to the fire for real and telling him Dick Cheney’s stale crumbs are not good enough.

http://open.salon.com/blog/f_arouete/2012/05/12/part_2_obama_eight_years_behind_cheney

Report this

By Lulu, May 13, 2012 at 2:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So the president is terrific because he legalized killing human beings, American or not, gay or not? It’s quite irrelevant their orientation as long as the president is ‘progressive’ it’s terrific to kill them?
What happen to truthdig, the progressives..it’s Scheer insanity

Report this

By Lulu, May 13, 2012 at 2:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So the president is terrific because he legalized killing human beings, American or not, gay or not? It’s quite irrelevant their orientation as long as the rpesident is ‘left’ it’s OK to kill them?
What happen to truthdig, the progressives..it’s Scheer insanity

Report this
racetoinfinity's avatar

By racetoinfinity, May 12, 2012 at 1:37 pm Link to this comment

I’m disgusted by all these so-called progressives who don’t seem to believe in equal civil rights in all areas for the LGBT community.  They unwittingly express their disdain for equal human rights for all.

Report this

By Rafael Ravenet, May 12, 2012 at 10:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I was pleased to see how many bloggers similarly understood this issue as I.  Education, information and the web is slowly and inexorably advancing the cause of the 99%. This advance comes closer and closer to the drawn curtain moment of Oz fame. You see… Our society should be way past shock, casual acceptance or dismay over sexual preference and any respective chosen nuptial customs.  With no disrespect- how important is this issue?  Anti-bullying, universal healthcare and complete support of any family may preclude the need to spend time considering how people want to be described with respect to their marital status. Certainly, this issue means much to even more and for this reason I place it on the same register as method of corpse disposal or perhaps even the needed discussion of circumcision (sexual mutilation if there ever was a better example). What strikes me is the profile, dissemination and timing of the marital issue and how it strangely compares to abortion as a like grist. Gay rights and abortion are conquer and divide issues.  How many Americans go to church every Sunday and honestly believe homosexuality is a sin?  How many Americans celebrate liberated alternative sexual mores, customs and preferences? Why does the media focus on these types of issues instead of the real problems at hand? And of primary importance, why are these issues always described as ones splitting the electorate 50/50?  We all should know the planet is in serious trouble. Cultural trend shaping by those with their hand on the tiller of mass opinion seems to be the chosen divisive issue of the season instead of real, globally impacting issues covering new realities emerging just beyond the world watched socio-economic political horizon.

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, May 12, 2012 at 10:20 am Link to this comment

Whatsit:

I don’t open links.

Nor do I have legs available for pulling by foul-mouthed punks like you.

Report this

By smitty8, May 12, 2012 at 6:37 am Link to this comment

Thank you for an important and
well written article. I will share
it widely.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 12, 2012 at 5:09 am Link to this comment

Hey Reppublican Troll (aka. Aroute) Dick Cheny didn’t do JACK SHIT for gay rights as President (Dubbya being his sock pueppet) His lesbian daughter Mary, cares not a whit for the lievs of other lesbians, as is obvious not only from her memoir (“Now it’s MT Turn”) but from her employment as a shill for Coors beer.

Coors a copany homophpbioc from top to bottom was horrified to discover that they hadlost zillions in one of the most successful commercial boycotts in U.S. History. The LGBT community working in concert with the unionshad Coors blackballed fromebery gay bar in the countryin the 80’s and 90’s. Desperate to reconnect commercially with those they depise otherwise they hired a lesbian KAPO.

Her effrots did not meet with sauccess.

Report this

By Arouete, May 11, 2012 at 8:20 pm Link to this comment

When President Obama sent me an email asking for yet more money immediately after announcing his ‘evolution’ on ‘marriage equally’ (the money grubbers couldn’t wait a New York minute) all I wanted to know was, Why should I give him money for saying no more than Dick Cheney said eight years ago?

Yes, eight years ago the war-monger one-percenter Vice President Dick Cheney came out and said exactly what Obama said two days ago but no one made much of a brouhaha about his ‘evolution’. And “whisk, whisk, goodbye to all that. History is bunk.” Hurray! Hurray!

http://open.salon.com/blog/f_arouete/2012/05/11/obama_on_marriage_equality_eight_years_behind_dick_cheney

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 11, 2012 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment

You are.

You don’t known when your leg’s being pulled.

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, May 11, 2012 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment

Ehrenwhatsits:

Short memory you have.

You wrote “This one’s for you “americanme”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRvUv1bWGM”

Who’s the cretin?

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 11, 2012 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

I didn’t provide the link for a cretin like you.

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, May 11, 2012 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

Ehrenwhatsits:  I do not open links.

Stop boring me.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 11, 2012 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment

Here’s the right link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW2w7PXlWgk

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 11, 2012 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment

This one’s for you “americanme”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRvUv1bWGM

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, May 11, 2012 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

Ehrenwhatsit:

1.  You are boring.  And that’s with a small b—no big time for you.

2.  And your being boring has nothing to do with your sexual orientation, it has to do with your limited focus and vocabulary—which is one word with four letters beginning with f.

3.  I am against marriage of all types—it always brings out the worst in both parties.

Report this

By omygodnotagain, May 11, 2012 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment

The only reason that Obama took this action was that Wall Street has turned against Obama, because he is campaigning on inequality. Last election alone Goldman Sachs gave his campaign over a million dollars, and two dozen of their acolytes into the Obama administration to make sure he did nothing to offend. Joe Biden pushed him into it, so he could get Hollywood money. And as I lived in LaLa land for 15 years, you will not meet more disconnected from reality people anywhere else in the world.

The timing is bad… this was to raise funds for DNC… because they had no -one else to turn too, and Obama has broken every promise he made regarding Civil Liberties and the lawyers are furious at him.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 11, 2012 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

“I’m not homophobic. I’m homo-i-don’t-give-a-shit.”

No reagnstraley you’re homophobic. And damned proud of it too. Why else would this alleged “nonissue” so distress you?

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 11, 2012 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

And the reason why Gay Marriage sprang tpo the fore was because of Lawrence vs. Texas—as none other than Antonin Scalia in his dissent pointed out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6c7xhhmQO4

Report this

By omygodnotagain, May 11, 2012 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

Ehrenstein, I respect your passion, but timing was involved in all those issues you mentioned.

The reason that the British did not come out on the side of the South in the Civil War was they had just abolished slavery.

The reason that women earned the vote was that women were replacing men in the factories because they were cheaper and more willing to do as they were told.

The End of Segregation was due to World War 2. African Americans served in an integrated armed forces, and fascism had traumatized the world with its racial overtones, we were in a Cold War with Russia who were using segregation to entice African and other non-white countries to their ideology

It is all about timing…

Report this

By reganstraley, May 11, 2012 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

Gay marriage is a manufactured distraction from far more important issues that the owners of Washington and the media do not want us to think about.  See my opinion at Organism: A Post-American Journal (http://www.reganstraley.com/organism/gay-marriage.html).

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 11, 2012 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

Thank you Gmost. One of the reasons I’m positng on this topic is the hope that Robert Scheer will contribute to the discussion his article started/

“No-one on this blog is opposed to gay marriage. What they are opposed to is the timing. “

No-one on this blog is opposed to ending slavery. What they are opposed to is the timing.

No-one on this blog is opposed to ending segregation. What they are opposed to is the timing.

No-one on this blog is opposed to women’s sufferage. What they are opposed to is the timing.

There is no “right timing.” There are only serious issues and serious people like President Obama willing to speak up for them.

Report this

By omygodnotagain, May 11, 2012 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

Surf-thanks. No-one on this blog is opposed to gay marriage. What they are opposed to is the timing. In 2004 the Democrats lost the White House because of this issue. Here is a study by S.Illinois University. It was not morality but one issue gay marriage.
Mulligan, Kenneth. The Myth of Moral Values Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election. S. Illinois Univ. 2008

A very large number of Americans vote based on feelings and intuition. They do not understand why the country should spend when in debt while their taxes go up if the local government needs money, nor do they understand trickle down economics or monetarist policy , they do not understand the issues in the Middle East, or why jobs are going to China. But what they do understand are personal issues, family, school, religion etc. So they make decisions based on what is called an availability heuristic.  They say if he thinks this way about something I don’t like, then probably I won’t like the issues I don’t understand.

Obama had the election virtually sewn up, he just threw the Republicans a lifeline they will use to get into the White House. In all my years watching politics this has to be one of the dumbest moves by a politician seeking election to high office.

Report this

By surfnow, May 11, 2012 at 9:45 am Link to this comment

gmonst:

You miss the point. The very fact that a non-issue like gay maariage is given so much exposure- not just here -but in the MSM- is what is worrisome. The president will ever take press time- which there is very little of to begin with on this and other such isues- allows him to stay away from the crucial life-and death issues of jobs and war.Furthermore this is the Rovian conservative political strategythat has has allwoed the Republicans - and Republican wannabes like Clinton and Obama- to win so often in the past three deacades- stay away from vital issues.

Report this

By Gmonst, May 11, 2012 at 9:30 am Link to this comment

While I feel this announcement smacks of pandering, its at least putting Obama on the right side of history on this issue. That can only be a positive thing.  Yes one tiny positive thing in a world filled with problems, but still a positive step. 

I am a bit surprised at much of the rhetoric in the comments on this article.  There is a surprising amount of sentiments that come across as homophobic.  Calling homosexuals “fudgepackers?”  Come on, that’s displaying all the maturity I would expect of a 14 year old.  Calling a person posting comments about an article they obviously read “illiterate” is just plain stupid.  Its obvious that this topic makes many of you uncomfortable.  Maybe spend some time introspecting and examining that discomfort rather than just shooting the topic down as irrelevant.

If you don’t think its a big issue then don’t comment on the article.  Yeah the world is big nasty fucked up place with lots of big problems.  This is an article about one issue, if its not the issue that you care about, don’t comment about it.  There are plenty of articles about the bad economy, wars, fracking, government corruption, and oligarchic hegemonic world domination.  You can post your brilliant thoughts about those topics on posts about those topics.  Why come on to this article and bemoan that its not another article?

This is an issue that does affect peoples lives.  It may not be the most urgent pressing issue facing mankind, but that doesn’t mean its not important.  Whatever his reasons and motives, the president is in the right for taking this stance.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 11, 2012 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

And when the Republicans go down to defeat and crawl back into the slimeholes from once they came, you will be there to kiss their asses.

Report this

By omygodnotagain, May 11, 2012 at 9:01 am Link to this comment

@Ehrenstein

You are so self righteous. But when the Republican get voted in with a landslide… you will rue your arrogance, myopia and self centeredness.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 11, 2012 at 6:49 am Link to this comment

Oh yes. We LGBTs are so powerfully evil we can redue the United States to the status of a Third World Country simply by BREATHING!

Meanwhile, for saner Truthdiggers, read this—
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/05/barack_obama_s_decision_to_support_gay_marriage_was_a_rare_act_of_empathy_in_this_presidential_election_.html

Report this

By omygodnotagain, May 11, 2012 at 6:06 am Link to this comment

@ Ehrenstein We want Marriage and Marriage is what we shall have!

And if that means putting in an administration that turns the US into a Third World country or starts another war…..so what!!! is that the attitude.

There is bigger fish to fry

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, May 11, 2012 at 6:04 am Link to this comment

On February 27, 2004, Jason West, the Mayor of New Paltz, NY, announced that he would perform same-sex marriages, and he commenced to do so.

After his officiating at 25 same-sex marriages, Mayor Jason West was charged with 19 (police witnessed) counts of solemnizing marriages without a license (it then being illegal to license same-sex marriage).

Jason West supported same-sex marriage, at personal risk to himself, because he is a Green.

In June of 2011 (more than 7 years after Jason West defied the inequitable law and married same-sex couples), Andrew Cuomo, the gangster Democrat Governor of New York who openly caucuses with Republicans, produced a Marriage Equality Act that he corporate party usefully used to distract public attention from his tax reform that benefited households having annual incomes between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000… the predatory financials sector.

There’s no pride to be earned or deserved by those who gain the recognition of their rights through support of other wrongs.

The “Principles” of Liberal Voters:

http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=491&Itemid=1

Report this

By balkas, May 11, 2012 at 5:57 am Link to this comment

let’s face one FACT [yes, the fact]: goddevil or nature appears infinitely-
valued and, sorry folks, it plays all kinds of tricks on us.
one of them is making some male babies with female sexual feelings;
some males with sexual feelings fro regular guyz; some females with
sexual aversion for feminine females.
so, what u do in sexual arenas is not up to u but up to devilgod or
nature.
and we need to accept the will of the nature.
===
goddarned IT, THE AWESOME-ALMIGHTY IT, made me stupid—and damn
it!!!, i can’t do nothing about it.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 11, 2012 at 5:49 am Link to this comment

“Then the issue is to change the law to include civil unions. Marriage has been a human institution of men and women for thousands of years. It has an INTERNATIONAL character. This is not something that can be changed overnight. Whole societies are built around marriage.”

Thank you Maggie Gallagher.

We want Marriage and Marriage is what we shall have!

Report this

By omygodnotagain, May 11, 2012 at 5:45 am Link to this comment

@Ehrenstein
“Civil unions have all the substance.  They are the pirze that gets insurance rights, inheritance rights, etc, etc.  ‘Marriage’ is a religious ceremony.”

Wrong!

1) Then the issue is to change the law to include civil unions. Marriage has been a human institution of men and women for thousands of years. It has an INTERNATIONAL character. This is not something that can be changed overnight. Whole societies are built around marriage.

2) As seen by the recent election in North Carolina there are substantial numbers of people who feel very strongly that however dysfunctional marriage is today, they do not want to change it.

3)If this issue does push the election over to Romney and keeps a Republican majority, do you not think that they will make sure it becomes impossible to have any changes in the law.

4) Why could this not wait until after the election.

5) Has Obama kept any of the promises he made from the last election, such as repealing the Patriot act, no he has done the opposite.

6) The major issue of the day is reining in FREE MARKET FUNDAMENTALIST CAPITALISM and moving this country over to a stakeholder model such as Germany has.

7) The other major issue is to stop Israel from attacking Iran. One because such an attack is illegal and two because it could start a world war.

GET A LIFE

Report this

By balkas, May 11, 2012 at 5:31 am Link to this comment

most marriages represent a master-serf relationship. and in most cases,
man is the master and woman a serf.
and in some marriages, serfdom of a female becomes almost slavery.
it is no wonder church people bless such relationships.
if we wld make a move towards sanity, marriage wld disappear.
but we aren’t going in that direction—thanks mostly to our ‘dear
leaders’: clergy, politico’, professors, plutocrats, et al.

Report this

By John in Kerrville, May 11, 2012 at 5:26 am Link to this comment

A still better term to replace a man having to say “my husband” or a woman having
to say “my wife”:  “My Spouse”.  (Rhymes with House, Mouse, and Louse)

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 11, 2012 at 5:19 am Link to this comment

“Civil unions have all the substance.  They are the pirze that gets insurance rights, inheritance rights, etc, etc.  ‘Marriage’ is a religious ceremony.”

Wrong!

ONLY Marriage is fully recognized by the law, the courts, the hospitals, etc. etc. The “religious ceremony” CARRIES NO LEGAL WEIGHT WHATSOEVER.

Jeez but you people are THICK!

“This degeneratocracy” goves the game away completely. Ypu hate us. You always have. You always will. That we stand up and demand our rights sickens you. There is no difference between “Left” and “Right” when it comes to Heterosexual Privilege.

Being “polite” you declare we are a “distraction:” from the “real issues” and that Obama is “using” us as “triage.” This would be hilarious if it your real agenda weren’t so utterly obvious.

Marriage Equality became and issue that emerged out of the AIDS pandemic. But NOT for the reasons you imagine. For Marriage doesn’t equal monogamy—as Newt Gingrich and John Edwards (among a great many others) prove.
We had relationships—long-standing, deep and loving. Many of us made legal arrangements we thought would ast. But when push came to shove the courts ignored them. Contracts and wills that were seemingly impregnable were p loved and had made lives with. The courts on we loved and had made lives with. The courts only recognized “real relatives.” Thus Mothers and Fathers who had rejected and despised their gay children swarmed like vulrues over the corpse, tossed lovers out of their own homes and laid claim to all the money and property thy could pput their hands on. Had we been able to marry none of this would have happened.

Do I make myself clear?

Do you give a shit?

OF COURSE YOU DON’T!

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, May 11, 2012 at 4:33 am Link to this comment

Oh yes, Lord Hapsburgh, Obama has “been brilliant against the opposition” — that is, in his campaigning against those opposed to a continuum of the corporate (R) & (D) party’s sociopathic neoliberal policies.

However, in this degeneratocracy, it’s easy for a corporate party Democrat to brilliantly herd together people consumed by their narrowly self-focused desires into wet-loined flocks of sheeple eager to support the “human rights” position demonstrated by the devious corporate party Democrats’ dependence upon a perpetual war economy supported by ruthless global economic exploitation and resource extraction into certain extinction.

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://chenangogreens.org

Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org

Report this

By Lord Hapsburgh, May 11, 2012 at 2:40 am Link to this comment

It’s called political triage and Obama is brilliant at it… Had he embraced
SSM at the onset of his presidency the GOP would have drawn even deeper
and bloodier lines; DADT would still be in lace and just as ugly and the
battle at the state level would be in stalemate.  I am stunned at how so
many people don’t see, or underestimate our president.  There is no magic
folks, everybody isn’t going to get a pony—Santa lies… Grow up, Obama
has been brilliant against the opposition.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 11, 2012 at 12:24 am Link to this comment

Spot on prisnersdilema. 

That this ‘marriage’ issue was trotted out right before the election is such a damn obvious diversion.  NPR took the bait and skimmed the surface issues….Romney flip-flopping, etc.  Though they did hint Obama was making it an election issue, they did not go so far as to say we have more universal rights at stake. 

Civil unions have all the substance.  They are the pirze that gets insurance rights, inheritance rights, etc, etc.  ‘Marriage’ is a religious ceremony.  The numb-nuts who fight for the right to a religious ceremony…..sanctioned, licensed by the government…....should just join a church that allows it.  That is not getting back in the closet. 

What is the government supposed to do?  Tell the Presbyterians and Methodists and Baptists that a US issued government marriage license now means these congregations have to do the marriage ceremony for LGBT? 

The ‘marriage’ is frosting on the cake.  There are many people, including LGBT who’s lives are being destroyed by other pressing issues, so to those who would subvert those issues prior to an election for silly icing on the civil union cake are real jerks.  Unwitting shills.

Report this

By jason, May 10, 2012 at 9:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Did you really put a picture of a gay guy in a bar in
San Francisco watching Obama on TV as the graphic to go
with this article?  Is this your idea of a gay action
shot or something?  Are we supposed to assume the
person is gay because he is in SF?  Very strange.

Report this
racetoinfinity's avatar

By racetoinfinity, May 10, 2012 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment

@ omygodnotagain - You don’t give a rat’s ass about human rights?  At least you say it directly.  And it’s a pity.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 10, 2012 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

” It has become effin’
boring and of overrated interest. We on the left only wish to escape its fatiguing
ubiquity and dominance.”

I weep hot tears for your BOREDOM

“Gays did not ‘change their minds’ as much as they changed their sexual
behaviors and political tactics, and renamed the skirmish ‘marriage’ in order to
give it traction and sanction.”

This is not a “skirmish>’

”  Separate but equal?  Equal is not so bad when you
look at the past.”

You don’t know JACK SHIT about the past.

“Valuing privacy regarding one’s most intimate moments hardly
equates with losing freedom.”

It’s not “intimate moments” it’s one’s whole life. But you don’t know JACK SHIT about that. And you have no interest in learning.

“I am sick of hearing about rights, and never hearing much about the wrongs of this liberal capitalist system.”

Really? FUCK YOU!!!

Report this

By John Drabble, May 10, 2012 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Gee, if Obama just wasn’t committing all those war crimes—killing all those innocent civilians. And if he hadn’t taken Bush’s attacks on American’s civil liberties to new heights, I would probably vote for him.

But, alas, I don’t vote for war criminals, and i don’t vote for republicans, so it will be “none of the above” for me. Yes, yes I know all the arguments. If you want to vote for a corporate stooge murderer of women and children because you think he’s better than a Republican go for it. Vote for your oppressor!

Report this

By T*Rose, May 10, 2012 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment

“Today the marriage vows that were previously scorned are now ESSENTIAL to
happiness! I still have all my friends, still love them, still champion their civil
rights, but I cannot see how or why a civil union is not a more desirable option
for those who denigrated ‘marriage’.”

So because they changed their minds they deserve “separate but equal”?

“I’m all for keeping sexual preferences personal, and realizing that some
choices
are just not mainstream.”

“LBGT is not the centerpiece of politics, or
shouldn’t be.”

Not our doing, dear. But the LGBT communities have become a scapegoat for
the Right—and to judge from the posts in here for the left as well.

I’ts not a “preference” it’s an orientaion.It’s not a “choice” either.  And keeping
it “personal” means a return to the closet.

Not gonna happen.

Dear, we BOTH know that keeping this issue personal and off the front page
EVERY DAY will not send it back into the closet.

The right and left could not be more apart on this issue.  It has become effin’
boring and of overrated interest. We on the left only wish to escape its fatiguing
ubiquity and dominance.

Gays did not ‘change their minds’ as much as they changed their sexual
behaviors and political tactics, and renamed the skirmish ‘marriage’ in order to
give it traction and sanction.  Separate but equal?  Equal is not so bad when you
look at the past. Valuing privacy regarding one’s most intimate moments hardly
equates with losing freedom.

The only thing I agree with is that it is an orientation; not a preference; not a
choice.

Hey, I not even ‘holding on gays’ for the destruction of music into disco during
the late ‘70s

Report this

By omygodnotagain, May 10, 2012 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment

I don’t give a rats ass about gay marriage, but I do about economic inequality, possible war with Iran, and the shipping of jobs overseas. I am sick of hearing about rights, and never hearing much about the wrongs of this liberal capitalist system.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 10, 2012 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

“Today the marriage vows that were previously scorned are now ESSENTIAL to
happiness! I still have all my friends, still love them, still champion their civil
rights, but I cannot see how or why a civil union is not a more desirable option
for those who denigrated ‘marriage’.”

So because they changed their minds they deserve “separate but equal”?

“LBGT is not the centerpiece of politics, or
shouldn’t be.”

Not our doing, dear. But the LGBT communities have become a scapegoat for the Right—and to judge from the posts in here for the left as well.

“I’m all for keeping sexual preferences personal, and realizing that some choices
are just not mainstream.”

I’ts not a “preference” it’s an orientaion.It’s not a “choice” either.  And keeping it “personal” means a return to the closet.

Not gonna happen.

Report this

By T*Rose, May 10, 2012 at 3:39 pm Link to this comment

In the ‘80s, altho we were a hetro couple, we worked in the entertainment
industry and about 95% of all our friends were gay. At that not so long ago
time, ‘Marriage’ was looked down upon, ridiculed and derided by our gay
friends; it was considered unsophisticated, undesirable and limiting to sexual
experiences. We were NOT hip and should know it!
Then AIDS became epidemic.
Today the marriage vows that were previously scorned are now ESSENTIAL to
happiness! I still have all my friends, still love them, still champion their civil
rights, but I cannot see how or why a civil union is not a more desirable option
for those who denigrated ‘marriage’.
That may be why I really infuriate about changing the language to
accommodate the oxyomoronic ‘his husband’ and ‘her wife’. Even this married,
hetro couple mostly use the term ‘partner’ or ‘spouse’ 
No pandering allowed/aloud! LBGT is not the centerpiece of politics, or
shouldn’t be.
I’m all for keeping sexual preferences personal, and realizing that some choices
are just not mainstream. Medical Marijuana, another Obama betrayal, deserves
support as well, and IS a political matter.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 10, 2012 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment

THis knee-jerk “While we do our best to ignore the issues, calamatis issues that are facing this world of
ours” translates into one thing and one thing only—“GET IN THE BACK OF THE BUS AND SHUT UP!”

Well sir, with all do respect FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 10, 2012 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment

“Gavin Creel should not be expected to understand that marriage should be a secular issue.

He DOES understand it’s a secular issue. That’s what the protest was about.

“Yeah, Ehrenwhatsit, I am an old female Native American, so your sexual orientation and your color cut no ice with me.”

Oh I am SO impressed!

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, May 10, 2012 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

It looks as if some people, are so desperate for hope, and for change that they will
accept anything that comes there way..

It could have happened and should have happened a long time ago. So now we can
have something to chew on for the next few months…

While we do our best to ignore the issues, calamatis issues that are facing this world of
ours.

The Democratic party excels with cosmetic change, the Republican party excels with
fighting cosmetic change, this creates ongoing tension, struggle, tension… and then
some appearance of resolution.. But nothing has really been resolved, and nothing will
ever be resolved, as long as, we avoid the hard confrontations and the hard decisions,
but most of all the hard truths, and keep being willing participants in our own mind
control.

.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 10, 2012 at 1:53 pm Link to this comment

Gavin Creel should not be expected to understand that marriage should be a secular issue.  I blame Biden.  Politicians should know in what the state should and shouldn’t be involved.

I think Biden showed he is a corporate Democrat and intentionally stirred this up as an election issue, perhaps so we wouldn’t focus on the economy, or the financial sector.  Obama just fell in line.

Too bad people can;t see this for what it is….a diversion that will gain LGBT people NOTHING.  Seriously….what is the right to a church wedding worth?  A civil union actually gets people something.  Then there are other issues…..

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, May 10, 2012 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

Yeah, Ehrenwhatsit, I am an old female Native American, so your sexual orientation and your color cut no ice with me.

Not even a small cube.

You are an illiterate nitwit—and that is not a minority in the US—and not on this site, either.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 10, 2012 at 1:13 pm Link to this comment

“From whence spring all these “rights?” What are they all? Who grants them? “

Ask Fat Tony Scalia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6c7xhhmQO4

“Again, I want to know exactly who (Biden??) made this a potential election issue.”

No, not Joe Biden—Gavin Creel back in 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKI1r4VLfzc

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 10, 2012 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

Don’t get caught up in debating from where rights are derived.  It’ll lead to a theoretical discussion that’ll just hijack the thread.

Obama was tight on this one, perhaps only proving even a blind squirrel finds an acorn on occasion, but let’s make sure LGBT people have legal right codified to civil unions, they can get ‘marries’ with, by, and however they choose without the state involved, and then MOVE ON to more universal issues. 

Not to get off topic, but on some reflection, I have to half disagree with Chivatzking.  It’s not that the upper 30% hold the wealth.  It’s what they do with it.  It actually doesn’t take much wealth to live very decently in a country with a robust infrastructure. 

The topic I believe is Obama’s handling of the issue, and perhaps the issue itself, LGBT ‘unions’.  Again, I want to know exactly who (Biden??) made this a potential election issue.

Report this
Airborne855's avatar

By Airborne855, May 10, 2012 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment

From whence spring all these “rights?” What are they all? Who grants them? Are they natural laws or man-made? Can we pick and choose? Who says yea or nay? Can I grant myself rights that no else has? Why or why not?

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 10, 2012 at 12:51 pm Link to this comment

“Ehrenwhatsit?”

It’s Ehrenstein.

“You are waaaaaay too old to still be

carrying around such a chip on your shoulder

Yeah I’m sup an Uppity Fag ain’t I?

And I’m balck too—so it’s a twofer.

“Debating gay marriage while the nation’s finances
are in catastrophic disarray, our cities are
becoming preternatural ruins before our very eyes,
our farm and ranchlands are about to be poisoned by
a hundred “secret” and certainly toxic chemicals
injected into wells by a rapacious energy cabal and
a complete dearth of preparation for the obvious
anthropogenic climate weirding all indicate a nation
in terminal decline and willful blindness. But we
will be celebrating “Barebacking in the Bathhouse”
soon on pay-to-view TV.”

Yes IT’S ALL THE GAYS FAULT!

Right Ray?

What a pithy observation.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 10, 2012 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

Ehrenstein your argument ‘they’ve always done it this way’ does not work for me.  We might look up other things that seemed OK at the time, but were recognized as very wrong by today’s standards. 

I have to agree with Chiavatzking on this, that the ‘marriage’ issue, (not the civil union issue) is just over-the-top distracting from far more fundamental civil liberty issues.  The travesty of corporatized education being high on the list.

Report this

By Ray Duray, May 10, 2012 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment

Hi Big B,

You said “I fear that our epitath is already
written.”

Yes it has been. Oscar Wilde quipped that “America
is the only country to have progressed from
barbarism to decadence without the intermediate step
of civilization.” Or words to that effect. smile

Debating gay marriage while the nation’s finances
are in catastrophic disarray, our cities are
becoming preternatural ruins before our very eyes,
our farm and ranchlands are about to be poisoned by
a hundred “secret” and certainly toxic chemicals
injected into wells by a rapacious energy cabal and
a complete dearth of preparation for the obvious
anthropogenic climate weirding all indicate a nation
in terminal decline and willful blindness. But we
will be celebrating “Barebacking in the Bathhouse”
soon on pay-to-view TV.

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, May 10, 2012 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

Nice post gerard:

But SOLUTIONS require doing what Alexander the Great did:  CUTTING THE GORDIAN KNOT!

Report this

By gerard, May 10, 2012 at 12:18 pm Link to this comment

If all the agonizing, equivocating and moralizing angst surrounding this issue could be centered as well on what to do about the terrible cruelties and injustices of mass madness like war—well, for one thing, I’d have some hope for the future.
  It is significant that religious tenets are used to try to make loving same-sex relationships  
“immoral” and “illegal” at the same time the same religious tenets are used to make mass murder (as in wars) “moral” and “legal.”
  Probably the original difficulties popped up among prehistoric tribes as a property issue all mixed up with other religious “properties” like “voices” and “visions” and “medicine” and “sacrifice” and “heaven” and “hell” and all the rest of that surreal mythology—the roots, by the way, of poetry,  music and dance as well as of cultism, sainthood, and other mad enthusiasms. What a tangle! 
  Once I saw Lotte Lehmann sit alone onstage in a rockingchair with nothing but a ball of tangled yarn in her lap. For a full hour she kept the audience in hysterics, said not a word, but patiently worked to untangle the wool. The “act” ended when a phone suddenly rang off-stage—and our ribs were aching. So utterly human!

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, May 10, 2012 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

I’m a Chavista, too—but I cannot see Twentyfirst Century Socialism EVER in Gringolandia.

Gringolandia was FOUNDED on inequality:  No rights for blacks, native americans or women—and no rights for poor white males, either.  You had to ripoff property from my people to be able to vote.

Gradually a few rights were dribbled in the direction of women and blacks (my people still have the right to 75% unemployment and are forced to carry US passports).

But the bottom line has always been:  If you are POOR you are EVIL and because you could be contagious, the rich folks want nothing to do with you.

In Venezuela, the gini coefficient is now just under 3—edging towards that of the Scandiniavian countries.  In the US, the same as in Mexico, the Gini is right about 5—duking it out with Zimbawbwe and other unequal countries.

So, with such a wildly unequal third world distribution of wealth, why would Twentyfirst Century Socialism not attract gringos?

Because they are all convinced that some sort of Deus ex machina will appear and pooof shazam shaboom:  they will all be fighting Carlos Slim for the top spot on the Forbes List of billionaires.

They consider Twentyfirst Century Socialism as only for non-white folks—who were born to be poor.

Report this

By E Henry Schoenberger, May 10, 2012 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment

Sexual Equality Close: Economic Equality – Not So Close!
It is time the President recognized the world has changed. My grown daughters and son who is a neuro radiologist have helped me become a firm supporter of marriage equality, and sexual preference equality.

Equality for love should now be followed by equality for economic justice - which means putting the sociopathic greed of Wall Street Banks back into the carefully constructed cage of Glass-Steagall and the 1956 Banks Holding Co Act. Then apply the Sherman Act to ologopolistic/monopolistic health carriers; and correct the idea that is OK for many profitable big businesses to park profits and ship jobs offshore.

A majority of Americans is now better informed about the fact that marriage inequality is not fair. When Americans understand the root cause of this depression and vast chasm of economic inequality is the return of Social Darwinism metastasized into Financial Darwinism with the ethic of survival of the richest - we will be on a path to economic fairness.

To fix our society we need to establish a Doctrine of Fairness which extends to economic needs and wants. So we must protest against Financial Darwinism. The past is prologue - and the present provides exhaustive empirical evidence that the survival of the richest ethic controls Congress; motivates Wall St; interferes with regulators intervening, with our court system, and with the objectivity of the Fourth Estate.

To know more: http://www.howwegotswindled.com

Report this
ChaviztaKing's avatar

By ChaviztaKing, May 10, 2012 at 11:58 am Link to this comment

The problem of the USA is not gay-marriage or anti-
gay marriage.  The problem of the USA is the
concentration of dollars in the 30% of US population
which are the upper class and the middle class !!

And, and the low buying power, the destruction of
real incomes, of real salaries, of real wages, of
real buying power in about 70% of the population of
the USA, which are the majority of US citizens we see
in all US cities, which are the fast food workers,
delivery drivers, low-salary workers such as
immigrants who are used as slaves working in physical
demanding jobs like construction labor, lawn-mowing. 
And even many non-immigrants americans with college
degrees, but because of the neoliberalism economic
model of The Republican Party, and of The Democratic
Party are forced to work in Mcdonalds, Burger King,
Taco Bells, Wal Marts, Kroger and many other dirty
depressing jobs, with dirty, depressing labor
conditions.

There is not a greater terrorism in USA, than the
emotional depression and psychologic frustration of
american young people who busted their asses studying
4 to 5 years at a university. And where their parents
busted their asses paying for capitalist private evil
universities. And now those graduate young americans,
graduates from law degrees, medical degrees, etc. are
forced to work in Mcdonalds.

That is the real terrorism of USA, this hell that the
great majority, the 70% of population of USA are
going thru.

But this gay issue is used to hide the issue which is
THE CAPITALIST ECONOMIC MODEL AS THE MAIN PROBLEM OF
USA, AND SOCIALISM OF THE XXI CENTURY AS THE ONLY
SOLUTION FOR USA !!!


.

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, May 10, 2012 at 11:53 am Link to this comment

Ehrenwhatsit?

You are waaaaaay too old to still be

carrying around such a chip on your shoulder

and to still be illiterate.

And even your obscenities are cliches.

There are lots of homphpobic folks posting here, but I am not one of them.

But folks who cannot read and post silly comments piss me off.

Report this

By jake, May 10, 2012 at 11:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

yes tom, then he will be a true dictator

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 10, 2012 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

“The state never should have been able to ‘license’ marriage.”

It’s a tad late for that John Best. Marriag has ALWAYS been a function of the state from its very beginning.

HEY, YOU COULD LOOK IT UP!!!!!!

“Where do folks like you come from, anyway?”

Planet Homo of course.

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, May 10, 2012 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

Surfboy:

You didn’t recommend that Ehrenwhatsit mow lawns for oldsters and read those illiterate blind oldsters the gringo papers!

WTF?

You missed a bet to sow peace and harmony and a few mariguana seeds.

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, May 10, 2012 at 11:41 am Link to this comment

Ehrenwhatsits:

Your post is foolish.

The owners are: 

Big Bucks (as in Banks bailed out even though laundering billions in illegal drug monies)

Big Guns (arms manufacturers, arms dealers and the pentagon)

Big Oil (obvious)

Big Drugs (both legal and illegal)

Those are the folks whose boots your anti-uppity boy licks.

And I’m pretty sure the 5000 dollar suit is already in business for itself.

Mitt licks the same boots as the plastic capuccino boy does.  They fight for turns.


Where do folks like you come from, anyway? The Black Lagoon of Illiteracy?

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 10, 2012 at 11:34 am Link to this comment

But Ehrenstien, I agree that at present, you are absolutely correct in saying “But the fact of the matter is it’s the state that issue licenses and confers marriage.”

And what I am saying is that is BS, in that the state does not have the authority, never did have the authority, and never should have the authority to involve itself in a personal, perhaps religious decision.  The state never should have been able to ‘license’ marriage. 

Civil unions, yes, they are a legal contract, the domain of the State.  Marriages, no.  Hell, the state can issue dog licenses if it wants.  Cosmetology licenses.  Various brokers.  That is the realm of regulating commerce for public safety except in the case of dogs.

But if your idea of a marriage is X, Y, or Z, then that is something between two people, and if they choose it’s something between their families or even their church, or a random group of friends.  The battle for us all should be to get the government to stop issuing ‘marriage’ licenses to ANYBODY, hetero or LGBT.   

That said, since when two people form a civil union it’s a particular type of legal partnership, that is what the government should support.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 10, 2012 at 11:27 am Link to this comment

Welll you sure know whose boots to like “americanme.” How do Mitten’s Prada slippers taste?

Report this
americanme's avatar

By americanme, May 10, 2012 at 11:16 am Link to this comment

Well, he sure ain’t “uppity”, that Obomberboy.

If he licked the boots of his owners any more frequently his body would be permanent curved into the shape of a cursive “a”.

And in that condition that 5000 dollar Brioni suit would have to walk around without him in it—or look like hell.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 10, 2012 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

You’re the one that’s shallow, “surfnow.”

My lover and I have been together for over 38 years.

Fuck you and the horse your rode in on!!!

Report this

By surfnow, May 10, 2012 at 11:12 am Link to this comment

Ehrenstein, if sex is what you have devoted your “life” to you are indeed an incredibly shallow individual.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 10, 2012 at 11:12 am Link to this comment

“In any case…. isn’t ‘civil union’ where the governments role ENDS?  Aren’t ‘marriages’ the domain of the church? “

No.

Marriageis a function of the state.

PERIOD!!!!!

There’s a lot of needless confusion about this because religion is so damned greedy. But the fact of the matter is it’s the state that issue licenses and confers marriage. Preist, Rabbis, Justices of the Peace and duly-empowed Elvis impersonators in Las Vegas can perform marriages. All are equally valid.

And shen you get a divorce you don’t go to a priest.

“Mr. Ehrenstein I’m uncomfortable with your statement , that your sexuality is your life . I think it makes you a fanatic.”

No more of a fantatic than any Heterosexual with their constant FLAUNTING of wives and children ad nauseaum.

Report this

By Big B, May 10, 2012 at 10:53 am Link to this comment

I echo your sentiments, Ray. I fear that Barry will lean allright after election day, but I fear it will be to the right, not the left that son many of the obamabots believe.

This election still comes down to that oldest of american political axioms, we will once again be voting not for the best man for the job, but the lesser of 2 evils. Mitt will drive the boat into the iceberg. Barry will give us a thousand paper cuts, and then drive us into the same iceberg.

I fear that our epitath is already written.

Report this

By Ray Duray, May 10, 2012 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

Hi Big B,

I appreciate your comment’s general lucidity. One
quibble I might have regards your statement that
“... those who think that we will see the “real”
OBama after his re-election, its too late.”

Actually, what i fully anticipate in Obama’s second
term is continued pandering to the Wall Street power
base where Obama will be laying down markers for his
post-presidential foray into fabulous wealth
creation.

This pattern is already well established. Bill
Clinton and Tony Blair have blazed the trail. Each
have capitalized on their fabulous networking to
become exceedingly rich. Obama, as a hyper-
competitive individual, will be attempting to outdo
both of them.

And he’ll probably succeed at that. But the American
public surely shouldn’t think there are any crumbs
falling off this table to nurture their futures.
That’s not what the game is about today. At least
not with a self-serving pol like Obama.

Report this

By Big B, May 10, 2012 at 10:26 am Link to this comment

So let me get this straight (no pun intended), we should all be thrilled and congratulatory to Prez Barry for doing the right thing.

“Son, I see you didn’t burn the house down while I was at work today. Good boy! Here’s a cookie”.

Whoever stated previously in this thread that this is Chicago style politics at its finest drove the nail with one blow. I like to think of it as Clintonian as well, for that crooked son of a bitch never made a decision without first consulting the polls, and then making sure it pandered to a specific group who’s support he desperately needed. This reeks of classic election year politics. He knows he cannot win without the left, so now, after 3 and half years of ignoring them, its time to warm up the pandering express.

This is classic Barry at work. This was one of the easiest and less controversial decisions he will ever make. The people that hate him already still won’t vote for him. The folks who like him, will still vote for him. And most of the centerists that were leaning towards him will now support him. All the while this gutless coward (Barry) gets to remain in his cat-bird seat firmly on the fence.

And those who think that we will see the “real” OBama after his re-election, its too late. Besides, you have already seen the real OBama, the centerist, pro-business, neo-liberal, old school mayor Daley Chicago huckster. And just think, in november our choice is between this spineless sell out, and Mittens. It’s like being given a choice between Calvin Coolidge or Ronald Reagan. Oh, your gonna get fucked, but maybe at least Calvin might buy you dinner first (and remember your name)

Report this

By jimmmmmy, May 10, 2012 at 9:57 am Link to this comment

Mr. Ehrenstein I’m uncomfortable with your statement , that your sexuality is your life . I think it makes you a fanatic. Chritians and Muslims also make these claims only religion is their lives. Jamie Diamond makes the same claim Capitalism is his life. Look at the results of those claims . Pierre Trudeau said while prime minister of Canada . The government has no business in the bedrooms or boardrooms of its citizens. I agree the whole sexual orientation issue has nothing to do with governess. At 65 surely the purpose of life shoudn’t or can’t be sexuality.

Report this

By DHFabian, May 10, 2012 at 9:48 am Link to this comment

Do you think this could lead to, maybe, someday, extending internationally-upheld human and civil rights for America’s poor? Nah, not during the lifespan of this generation.

Report this

By jimmmmmy, May 10, 2012 at 9:44 am Link to this comment

Come on Bob, you knew this was in the works. The fudge packers have a huge vocal and organized lobby. To bad the dope smokers couldn’t catch a break here. The War on Drugs is a much greater evil than the war on gays, which only exists in the minds of religionists and gays,It is a great wedge issue . It generate so much money.

Report this

By Pamela de Maigret, May 10, 2012 at 9:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We are confusing the personal and the public aspects of the Presideny.  Ever since he was a State Senator Barak Obama has been in favor of gender equality.  But now, as
President, he is being asked to make a public policy statement on an issue that is very controversial to a large percentage of Americans.  He is right to be cautious and
deliberative if he is to bring the undecided around to his way of thinking.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, May 10, 2012 at 9:34 am Link to this comment

How can we avoid always taking the bait on these divide and conquer issues? 

In any case…. isn’t ‘civil union’ where the governments role ENDS?  Aren’t ‘marriages’ the domain of the church?  Why don;t we step back and ask why any level of government at all is involved in issuing licenses to conduct a religious ceremony? 

The clowns that had to push beyond civil union (from which all the legal rights flow) and insist on a right to ‘marriage’, which isn’t worth squat regarding civil liberties, are indeed clowns working against the best interest of all of us, themselves included.  If that’s what you want, marriage, just join a church that marries LGBT.  Why should the government get involved in a religions recognition? 

Who ARE these clowns? I want names.  Why?  because this is exactly the kind of bull-shit issue that distracts from frankly, MORE IMPORTANT MATTERS.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 10, 2012 at 8:49 am Link to this comment

Well of course he takes a big interest in this topic—HE’S GAY!!!!!!

“I find money to be a very
corrupting element of our politics today.”

That’s like finding g-strings a corrupting influence in stripping.

Report this

By Ray Duray, May 10, 2012 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

Hi Erhenstein,

Thanks for the 411 on $1 MM in 90 minutes. The
Drudge Report had a link on that item. Matt seems to
be taking a big interest in this topic.

***
As far as the question of cynical vs. practical, my
only quibble is that I find money to be a very
corrupting element of our politics today. In a more
perfect world, we’d run elections that outlawed
campaign donations and consisted of an informed
citizenry making an electoral decision after a very
brief publicly financed campaign season. I find the
American style of permanent election-cum-bribery
cycles to be turning our politics into a mockery of
democracy.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 10, 2012 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

Why the quote aroudn the word freind, John? Doe Teh Ghey freak you out? Apparently it does as you’re obsessed with gender roles.

Report this

By faith, May 10, 2012 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

Mr. C yr, you are right on point, “..Republicans and Democrats work together —
hand in glove — to create social discord ...”

Report this

By John in Kerrville, May 10, 2012 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

“Friends” of the same sex should be able to have close relationships without one
of them having to assume the role of the opposite sex.

Report this

By Dale Johnson, May 10, 2012 at 8:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama being terrific!  Bull!!!  He lets plutocrats who ruinted the world economy off the hook and appoints Wall Streeters to the FED and Treasury, has Warriors to Pentagon, Defense, and CIA to pursue is imperial ambitions by war and assasination. Capitulates to Republican intrnsigents.  Sometimes nice rhetoric, but always Dirty Deeds.

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 10, 2012 at 7:58 am Link to this comment

90 minutes after the interiew was aired the Obama campign received 1 million dollars in contributions. And there’s more gay money where that came from.

“Cynical”?

How about “Practical”?

Report this

By John in Kerrville, May 10, 2012 at 7:50 am Link to this comment

I would have no problem with “his partner” at all.

Report this

By Mr. West, May 10, 2012 at 7:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Funny thing about liberals, instead of celebrating the President’s change in policy. All people can do is complain about the way the President changed his policy. I would argue this is exactly what the right wants the left to do. Be devisive and continue the infighting even though we as a collective have moved the ball forward. Now is the time for unity to solidify what the President has proposed. We should be calling out the Log Cabin Republicans for their obvious back pedalling. Instead we fight amoungst ourselves instead of joining forces to actually challenge the right as a unified front. In my mind I can’t tell if Robert Sheer is actually on the side of liberals or just a plant from the right to keep the infighting prolonged so the issue doesn’t gain the momentum it needs to spread across the nation. Stop tearing each other down and become a total force for change, folks. Mr. Sheer and the rest of you holding the left back, and you ARE NOT ADDING VALUE !!!

Report this

By Ray Duray, May 10, 2012 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

From the School of Cynicism that declares “no matter
how jaded I get, it’s hard to keep up” comes one of
my favorite speculations of the morning.

It appears that David Axelrod did the calculation on
donations to the Obama 2012 re-election campaign
from the LGBT community and found some cause for
alarm.

Thus, the President has just placed a marker and
intends to collect on it before November.

Ain’t Chicago politics fun? smile

Pondering the pandering, Ray

Report this

By Ehrenstein, May 10, 2012 at 7:29 am Link to this comment

“It’s all about deflection and going on and on about issues that don’t mean jack”

YOU don’t mean jack “surfnow”!

“Rome is burning and Nero is playing the violin.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXZKTil3NBk

Report this

By ron hansing, May 10, 2012 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

Rome is burning and Nero is playing the violin.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook