Why NC's passage of Amendment One ultimately does not matter.

[TalkingDog]

Liberalism will win in the end.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Kick and going on my FaceBook right fucking now. (nt)

[Pab Sungenis]

2. "Ultimately?"

Forgive me, but that's like saying that Stalin killed 60 million people but ultimately that did not matter because 40 years later the Soviet Union broke up.

We don't have time to wait for "ultimately."

[Warpy]

3. Then I'm afraid you'll have to vote with your feet

and stick to the more enlightened states like I have. You'll have to wait for the Roberts court to retire or die off otherwise.

[SunSeeker]

5. Best comment of the night.

It really does come down to the Supreme Court. It was the SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that struck down all those anti-interracial marriage laws. And only SCOTUS can get rid of all those (30 at last count) same-sex marriage bans. And the only way we'll get a progressive SCOTUS is to elect a Dem POTUS.

So instead of lamenting the NC result that everyone predicted, let's focus our energy on reelecting Obama. At least that is something we CAN do.

[Pab Sungenis]

7. Even WITH a Democratic President

We can't get a more liberal Court. Look at the last two appointees, one of which is against gay marriage herself.

Either way this election goes the Court is going to get more conservative.

[SunSeeker]

20. Oh please. There's a HUGE difference between Dem & Repuke SCOTUS appointees.

I'd like a like to what you're referring to about marriage equality, but regardless, it's the 5 Repuke appointees that were the 5 to 4 majority in Citizens United; and those 5 also upheld all those crazy anti-abortion, anti-civil rights cases. A SCOTUS full of Sotomayors would be light years different than a Court full of Scalias. And you know it. If Obama replaces just ONE of those Repuke appointees with even a moderate, it will be a sea change in the Supreme Court.

[Pab Sungenis]

21. Huge difference?

Q: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

A: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

On the paramount issue that affects my life there is absolutely no difference between Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Antonin Scalia.

And thank you for telling me my rights don't matter as much as yours.

[SunSeeker]

23. There is no explicit provision, but there are the "unenumerated rights"

and of course the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendement. You haven't given me a link, but I am pretty sure she was referring to the fact that there is no explicit Constitutional provision that mentions "samesex marriage." And, she was trying to get through a Senate confirmation process where Repukes were whispering about her "love of softball" and unmarried status. I have no doubt that Elena Kagan supports same-sex marriage. And I have no doubt given the chance she would overturn Citizens United, which is what is funding the election of people who are on the opposite side of the paramount issue that affects your life--she was one of two votes to hear the Montana law that reinstituted the campaign finance rules that Citizens United abrogated.

I did not tell you my rights did not matter as much as yours. I just disagree with your strategy. You are telling people there's no difference between Repuke and Dem SCOTUS appointees and that is hugely inaccurate. Further, that is the kind of talk that suppresses voter turnout, which helps the Repukes (and hurts me and you).

We're not going to get where we need to be by attacking each other.

[Pab Sungenis]

26. Then stop attacking us.

Stop telling us to shut up and sit down. This is not "strategy," this is justice.

There is no difference, as far as gay rights are concerned, between the two nominees Obama made to the Supreme Court in his first term and those John McCain would have. I'd like there to be some real assurance that this will not be the case next time.

If Kagan were a Republican nominee and spoke about opposition to abortion or Affirmative Action in the same tone she spoke about the right to marry, do you think she would have been allowed to stay as nominee. Hint: it already happened.

LGBT rights needs to be our litmus test for nominees, just like abortion is for Republicans. If you are opposed to LGBT rights you don't deserve to be on the Court. Hell, if you don't support LGBT rights then you don't deserve to be a Democrat.

[SunSeeker]

29. All I'm saying is you're wrong to say Kagan and Sotomayor are the same as a Repuke appointee.

If you want to keep saying it, that is of course you're right and I am not telling you to shut up. And you should not try to shut me up by accusing me of not supporting LGBT rights. For me to point out that you are wrong about Kagan does not mean I do not support LGBT rights. I do. Everyone here at DU supports LGBT rights. We also support the Democratic Party, hence the name of the site.

Arguing that Kagan and Sotomayor are the same as any potential McCain appointee is wrong IMO and plays into the Repuke strategy to convince voters that it's all the same so why bother voting.

[Pab Sungenis]

31. On this issue, Kagan IS the same as a Repuke appointee

and will be so until and unless she votes the other way.

Obama's record on LGBT issues from 2009 until November of 2010 was abysmal. Yes, that was a step up from Bush and Clinton on the issues, who were catastrophic, but still nothing to crow about.

We saw one major deed: DADT, and that only happened after he lost the House and the Congressional Leadership realized if they didn't act then it would never be done. And the witch hunts and discharges continued up until the very last day before the new policy was certified.

Any Democratic nominee who says something as blatant as "There is no Constitutional right to same sex marriage" does not deserve to sit on the Supreme Court. That Obama didn't pull her nomination when she said that was just one more insult thrown in our community's faces.

[Pab Sungenis]

33. And clarification: I didn't say YOU don't support LGBT rights

(although a large chunk of people here at DU don't, which becomes painfully obvious during these debates), but that Kagan doesn't. Kagan doesn't believe in same sex marriage, which is the paramount LGBT rights battle at the moment.

[joeybee12]

16. Good Lord...let's focus our energy on re-electing a lukewarm president...

geesh.

[Bruce Wayne]

9. Slightly flawed analogy

Gay couples are being oppressed, but not murdered. You can come back from having your rights denied, but you can't come back from dead.

But I agree that we, as a habit, should recoil from gradualism. MLK denounced it in his writings about the "fierce urgency of now" and his hopeful "FREEDOM NOW!" campaigns. Gradualism and inevitability should be used as reasons to dig in and fight harder, not to console the oppressed for yet another abuse.

[Pab Sungenis]

10. Okay, then here's another one.

"It's a shame that Nelson Mandela spent years in prison, but it's okay because ultimately Apartheid ended."

[TalkingDog]

11. So? What are you waiting for? Fix it now. Fix it RIGHT NOW!

Otherwise you are either full of pre-compost or you have no clue how a democracy actually works.

[Pab Sungenis]

13. I did what I could.

I voted for people who said they were on our side. They betrayed us.

I voted for a progressive Democrat. He replaced one of the most vocal gay advocates on the Supreme Court with a woman who says that the Constitution doesn't protect same-sex marriage.

[Pab Sungenis]

15. The other sad fact is that attitudes like this

encourage complacency. If it can't be fixed "RIGHT NOW!" then why bother trying to fix it?

"Ultimately liberalism will win" is roughly the same as saying "don't worry, be happy" not "fight to fix it."

[Luminous Animal]

4. While the sentiment is on the right side of history, it's too flippant right now...

Tonight there is a lot of righteous pain and anger that needs to acknowledged and support lovingly given.

[blkmusclmachine]

6. Liberalism will NEVER prevail on the back of bipartisanship.

You can't go left by always moving right.

[Chorophyll]

8. Great cartoon, but the title of your post is really cold comfort

for all the people who will have to live as second class citizens right NOW.

[TalkingDog]

14. As somebody who just had her 12 year marriage annulled by the voters of this state,

I really don't care what you think.

I am not religious and did not choose to marry in a church. In this state that obviously makes me a second class citizen.... (in addition to being a woman)

We've all got crosses to bear. But I'd rather focus on what I can do now. So, I'm picking myself up and continuing the fight. If you don't share that impulse, then you don't, but don't disparage me for having hope that, based on history, things will get better.

[CRK7376]

18. Good luck and stay

strong in the fight for equality. Not all North Carolinians, but it sure seems like we are surrounded by them, are opposed to equality and freedom for all.

[Chorophyll]

19. Wow. Okay. I didn't know you were affected personally.

There was no context in your OP to let anyone know that you were affected. Without context it came across a little patronizing.

But how can you possibly glean from my comment that I don't back you 100%? Because I do! Why would you ever, ever think I don't think you should continue the fight? We all should, in every state.

I'm sorry we misunderstood each other.

[Pab Sungenis]

22. Does it matter that TalkingDog was affected?

Should our opinions on issues be different because someone we know (to some degree) was affected?

I'm not saying that's what you think, but it's an interesting issue raised by your post. Far too often these issues don't matter to people until (a) they affect you personally or (b) they affect a friend or loved one.

Human nature is a terrible thing.

[Chorophyll]

24. I must have a sign on my head that says "misinterpret me."

I just thought the OP -- absent of any context -- seemed like a pat on the head to those in NC who are affected by the passage of Amendment One. As if they should just be patient and things would change.

When I found out that TalkingDog WAS directly affected, the post suddenly seemed a whole lot less patronizing.

THAT'S ALL I MEANT.

ETA: Please read past my subject lines, and look at the content of my posts.

[Pab Sungenis]

25. I said I wasn't saying that was how you felt

and I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I was raising a related subject.

[Chorophyll]

27. Gotcha. After the OP's response to my first comment I guess I'm a little sensitive.

FWIW, I think you're right and that a lot of people are homophobic until they realize they're related to someone, or work with someone, who is gay. (Just like a lot of people are against "Obamacare" until they get sick and lose their insurance.)

As for me, I'm disgusted that *some* people in NC voted to amend their constitution to render their neighbors second-class citizens. It should never have happened. But I truly believe that the bigots' days are numbered in this country.

[Pab Sungenis]

28. We're all on edge this week.

It's understandable. And even though I know people who are advocates of the Long Game on the marriage issue are trying to reassure us, it still annoys me that they're essentially telling us to suck it up and wait for someone else to decide that we're worthy of our rights.

[edhopper]

12. If we had a SCOTUS

that actually considered Civil Rights and the Constitution, I would agree.
But I don't see this overturned for a very long time.

[MineralMan]

17. Yes, it does matter. Voters should never be allowed to

take away people's civil rights in an election. Period.

[TheKentuckian]

30. The ultimately deal is a little to close in vibe to

"in a hundred years no one will remember any of this". I dunno, there is an impression that bugs in that school of thought for me in a general way.

[Zorra]

32. That's brilliant! nt