Forums | MacLife

Yeah, this is pretty smurfing outrageous.

robco wrote:

Guess our best bet now is Congress.

Translation: you is smurfed.

Which isn't how the gays like it, which is how you know homosexuality is wrong.

If you had to choose between nationalized health care, which could materially improve the lives of nearly 50 million Americans, of gay marriage, that might improve the lives of a few million or so; which would you choose?

It's not likely that Obama changed his mind, or was lying (completely) during the campaign. It's more likely that once he stepped into office, he realized that he had to make tough calls. You can only pick so many fights and win, and right now it appears that the Obama administration has decided to choose health care over gay rights. I suspect that Obama is throwing some bones to the Republicans to get their support on issues he considers more important.

I wouldn't expect you to be following the details on things of this nature, but I don't think anybody that is gay or activists or even those in the "gay establishment" (meaning organizations like Lambda Legal or Human Rights Campaign) expected movement immediately if even in the first year.  Every one is well aware of all of the other large challenges facing the country.  I think what is frustrating people is that not only is there not seemingly any communication with such groups by the administration, but that there's been a noticeable change in comfort even discussing things at the daily press brief, and on more than once occasion - coupled with odd things like altering the language on the WH web site re: DADT

The current thread, the substance of same, the language and flow of reasoning in the brief, etc. are what concern most, not so much that DOJ ended up defending written law as usual.  Now couple that with what, as far as has been described in the press, was no communication with the afore mentioned prominent gay establishment organizations like the WH would have done with any other such constituency, and your post is just naive and/or uninformed.  I remind myself that this WH can't be generally written off as incompetent like the last one, so I think it's easier to assume some sort of intentional slight.  I guess that's what concerns me the most.  Theoretically I can wait a couple of years for substance but it's increasingly hard to do so with the other bs I just mentioned.

radarman wrote:

Where did Obama call gay couples "free-loaders? I tried to find it, but couldn't get a single attributable quote where he said anything like that. I saw lots of sites that claimed he said it, but none provided links.

That's not to say I'm necessarily happy with the big O, but this is starting to smell like a web smear.

DOMA ensures that evolving understandings of the institution of marriage at the State level do not place greater financial and administrative obligations on federal and state benefits programs. Preserving scarce government resources — and deciding to extend benefits incrementally — are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review.

It's the same bullsmurf argument that Steele used the other week - gays would be sucking at the government teat if we let them get married and we just can't have that in this economy.

And did you miss the part where the ability to ban gay marriage was compared to banning incest and child rape?

And you still think it's a smear?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Yeah, I figured Obama would do his damndest to not repeat Clinton's mistake of going after a gay issue from the get-go. I don't expect him to do much of anything on this this year. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised if he were to just not deal with it altogether and let the courts sort it out (or not as the case may be, for reasons I still can't fathom).

Agreed. If he had been wise, he would have quietly dropped the gay issue until he had built up some wins in other areas, and then come back later with some political capital in his coattails. To jump in now, and irritate everyone, was pretty stupid.

This, unfortunately, is another sign of Obama's naivety. Thankfully, one of the less damaging ones, but a big one nonetheless. I think we all knew he was going to make some newbie mistakes, but geez - doesn't he have advisers?

Last edited by radarman (2009-06-13 8:49 pm)

someone else who thinks Obama is naive

lol

"Obama doesn't really care" ?

bedstuy wrote:

I wouldn't expect you to be following the details on things of this nature, but I don't think anybody that is gay or activists or even those in the "gay establishment" (meaning organizations like Lambda Legal or Human Rights Campaign) expected movement immediately if even in the first year.  Every one is well aware of all of the other large challenges facing the country.  I think what is frustrating people is that not only is there not seemingly any communication with such groups by the administration, but that there's been a noticeable change in comfort even discussing things at the daily press brief, and on more than once occasion - coupled with odd things like altering the language on the WH web site re: DADT

The current thread, the substance of same, the language and flow of reasoning in the brief, etc. are what concern most, not so much that DOJ ended up defending written law as usual.  Now couple that with what, as far as has been described in the press, was no communication with the afore mentioned prominent gay establishment organizations like the WH would have done with any other such constituency, and your post is just naive and/or uninformed.  I remind myself that this WH can't be generally written off as incompetent like the last one, so I think it's easier to assume some sort of intentional slight.  I guess that's what concerns me the most.  Theoretically I can wait a couple of years for substance but it's increasingly hard to do so with the other bs I just mentioned.

Yes.


Can I just throw in that on some issues it's never the right time to do the right thing?

I really wish the 'other' 20% could get a chance at the wheel. Piss that other 20% off, and do what's right, at least on this issue. Hell, 'that' 20%'s the folks who gave CA Prop. 8. Along with a million other things they've been busting on over the last umpteen years.

I'm sick of it.

Last edited by daemon (2009-06-14 10:26 am)

The solution is easy, but because we have a bunch of old farts running the show; it ain't happening anytime soon.

-mark

I, for one, won't be voting for the President again if, by the next election, there are not some substantial steps taken towards his election promises on this front .