Yeah, I know it's only been an hour or so, but does he just think it or

[Lionessa]

Last edited Wed May 9, 2012, 05:23 PM - Edit history (1)

IS HE GOING TO FIGHT FOR IT.

If not, then it's just a ploy to get donations and re-elected.

PS This OP is in response to all the threads popping up demanding contributions to Obama's campaign because he said something, again. jThose threads and the authors are the dead giveaway that this is likely a ploy, imo.

[dionysus]

1. congrats, you have the first cynical thread complaining about what should be celebrated.

proof that some people are gonna complain and gnash no matter what the hell happens...

[elleng]

2. Thanks, dion.

[dionysus]

3. you're most welcome

[EOTE]

5. Can you understand the cynicism?

I mean, this would have been a much more valuable endorsement if it came a few days earlier. Also, I'm guessing there are very few here who truly believe that Obama JUST made this as a personal decision right now without political considerations.

I applaud Obama in doing this, but I can certainly understand why people might be cynical as to his motivations.

[treestar]

15. Do the motivations really matter?

Are there people who only want marriage equality IF the motives of all are pure and cause them not to be elected?

Another thing, the cynics switch sides or are on both sides. What of the cynics who thought Obama's being against marriage equality was to get votes? Not he's for it to get votes? Which way gets more votes?

If we get equality, who cares how pure Obama's motives were, or of any of the legislators involved? It would mean society has changed its mind, no mean feat when you consider society's attitude a mere 30 years ago.

[EOTE]

22. Yes, of course the motivations matter.

It's great that he's supporting gay marriage with his words, but what about his actions?

As Obama has shown from time to time (HCR, MMJ, et al) there can be quite a difference between his campaign rhetoric and his actual actions. Words are great, but I'm anxiously awaiting his actions.

[cali]

24. I trust you'll be voting for him in November

[EOTE]

26. OK. Trust all you'd like.

I'm not going to vote for Romney, that's for sure. But Obama's going to need to actually earn my vote.

[cali]

27. so what does he have to do?

[EOTE]

29. Well, a good start would be to make good on his promise with regard to MMJ.

Perhaps call off the attack dogs at the DoJ (and don't even thinking of bringing out the old canard that the President is helpless against the all-powerful DoJ). Also, I'd like for him to not abandon his support for gay marriage as campaign season winds on. If I actually see him being pro-active with regard to civil rights for ALL, he's likely to earn my vote.

[cali]

39. Jeezus, why assume I'm going to say something? Hold onto your horses

I think he earned your support today- if you actually give a shit about civil rights. duh.

[EOTE]

43. Wait, you ask me what he can do to earn my vote and then insult me?

How classy.

You can think all you'd like, but I care far more about actions than words. And Obama has proven in the past that his words can be hollow. He'll earn my vote when I decide, not you.

The ones who don't give a shit about civil rights are the ones who actually think that words are more important than actions.

[emulatorloo]

54. His ACTIONS got DADT repealed and stopped the enforcement of DOMA

More on that in my reply to your rather nasty personal attack.

[EOTE]

63. And what actions were those?

Was it when he refused to overturn DADT in 2010 when it was declared unconstitutional? Was there any legitimate reason for that foot dragging? He signed the bill, I'll give him credit for that, but he didn't really do anything to bring it to his table.

[AtomicKitten]

79. A president cannot overturn a law -- only Congress can do that.

At his 2010 State of the Union Address, he asked Congress to do just that and said he'd be working with them and the military to end DADT by the end of the year. Really. It's a fact.

[SunsetDreams]

82. Thank you for facts nt

[EOTE]

87. You don't want facts, you just want words that back up your emotions.

As I've shown many times throughout this thread, your emotions are really no match for facts and logic.

[SunsetDreams]

113. In that case here have an emoticon

Guess that sort of proves what you just said.

You don't want facts, you just want words that back up your emotions.

As I've shown many times throughout this thread, your emotions are really no match for facts and logic.

[EOTE]

114. Wow, substantial! NT

[EOTE]

86. It was declared unconstitutional.

He could have issued an EO and he would have had the support of the public for doing that. He very well could have ended DADT in 2010 with no negative ramifications.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/10/19/is-obama-s-excuse-for-not-repealing-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-legitimate.html

[AtomicKitten]

91. He made sure the law was gone PERMANENTLY.

An EO could and almost certainly would be overturned by the next GOP president.

You're welcome.

[EOTE]

97. No, it was declared unconstitutional.

No president can simply reenact an unconstitutional law with a few pen strokes. And nothing would have prevented this administration from codifying the overturn of DADT after the EO.

[treestar]

162. It was declared unconstitutional in a district court if I recall

One district court out of many. While at the same time arguing the same thing with right wingers about ACA. They thought it was declared unconstitutional when one district court declared it was.

Yes a President could undo an EO in that situation.

[msanthrope]

137. EOs don't repeal laws. Read the Youngstown decision. nt

[SunsetDreams]

80. Where did he say "I refuse to overturn DADT"?

Got a link for that?

[EOTE]

85. He said that he didn't support it, he called for its repeal, it was declared unconstitutional.

He had the support of congress and the public to do it, but he didn't. He didn't literally utter the words "I refuse to overturn DADT", silly. But he ACTUALLY refused to overturn it BY NOT OVERTURNING IT. Some people prefer actions to words. And yes, of course I have a link to that.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/10/19/is-obama-s-excuse-for-not-repealing-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-legitimate.html

Of course, this was after this:

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-27/politics/obama.gays.military_1_repeal-policy-that-bars-gays-servicemembers-legal-defense-network?_s=PM OLITICS

Really, google isn't all that hard to use.

[SunsetDreams]

88. Ahhh I see

So I take it you are referring to issuing an Executive Order? One that could be overturned by the next President. That makes total sense to me, at least it would have lasted a few years until the next Republican in the Whitehouse overturned it with the mere stroke of a pen. Perhaps he wanted to make it stick.

[EOTE]

90. No, especially not considering that it was declared unconstitutional.

That was why it was a perfect time to take advantage. Both public support and the law were on his side.

[SunsetDreams]

99. Again are you referring to an EO?

Yeah he could take advantage of it alright, and the next President could just overturn it. I'm sorry but sometimes things are worth doing the right way, one that will have a lasting effect. I think Civil Rights deserve nothing less.

[EOTE]

103. Presidents can NOT enact laws which are unconstitutional.

Which is what DADT was declared to be. So, sorry. Also, there would have been NOTHING preventing the Obama admin from further codifying the repeal of DADT after such an EO. So there are no legitimate excuses for him not having done that in 2010.

[AtomicKitten]

106. Did the Supremes rule it unconstitutional? No, it was a lower court ruling.

The law had to be repealed and Pres O got it done, just like he promised.

You're welcome ... Well, that's not exactly what I want to say to people like you that twist yourself into a pretzel to minimize and marginalize everything he says or does. Suffice to say, you are not only wrong but your response is petty and dishonest.

[EOTE]

109. There would have been NOTHING preventing the administration from solidifying the repeal after an EO.

He dragged his feet for a year completely unnecessarily. I give him credit for signing it, but he without a doubt waited longer than he needed to. If he got rid of it in 2010, we wouldn't need worry that it would return.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/10/19/is-obama-s-excuse-for-not-repealing-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-legitimate.html

[AtomicKitten]

121. You're wrong. It would be appealed all the way to the Supremes.

You've already demonstrated your lack of understanding of laws and the judicial system, resting your entire argument on a hit piece in TDB. You are dead wrong on this, but the good news is that you are in the scant minority of people here who make it their business to marginalize and minimize everything positive this president does. I on the other hand am off to cook a celebratory dinner for my friends who are very grateful for the president's endorsement of marriage equality and are doing the happy dance today ...

[EOTE]

182. You do the happy dance all you'd like.

I'll wait for something substantial. I'm really tired of getting dicked over by the president. Until his actions more frequently match up with his rhetoric, I'll take everything he says with a grain of salt.

[msanthrope]

139. Bullshit--EOs don't repeal laws. Please don't use politcal pundits for legal analysis. nt

[cliffordu]

169. "Codifying the repeal of DADTafter such an EO...."

Can you name ONE instance where this has ever occurred, on any subject in the history of the US with any other president?

Pleeeze???????

OR:

WTF are you trying to say?

[Mr Dixon]

154. LOL

i guess he has to cure cancer and HIV and win the fucking superbowl single handed too right

[treestar]

161. That's got nothing to do with marriage equality, which the thread is about

And how much agreement with what you want will it take for him to "earn" your vote?

BTW, if he doesn't earn enough votes, he'll lose if Rmoney "earns" more.

[cliffordu]

170. Threadjack much??

Now it's about MMJ???

And then you speculate that he will abandon his marriage stance down the road in the campaign?

I get the picture here.

Even people with large post counts can work at hatred and subterfuge disguised as concern....

[EOTE]

180. It's about every time Obama has used rhetoric in exchange for actual action.

Such as with MMJ and the PO and even some of his rhetoric about gay rights in the past. Right now he's given more of that rhetoric. Only, unlike many here, I'm not going to play the fool again and I'm going to wait for ACTIONS. I know you can get by on words alone, but I'm funny that way.

[treestar]

160. What actions?

What actions are to be required of the President? There are no pending bills.

[EOTE]

181. Exactly, what actions?

Words only do so much. And while I applaud Obama for speaking out on this (although he's extremely late to the party and I don't believe for one second he JUST came to this personal decision now), he's going to need to actually DO something far beyond this to actually impress me. He has, without a doubt, ignored many of his promises in the past. Now simply saying that he supports something doesn't impress me all that much. SHOW ME.

[treestar]

184. What did he promise here?

What could he do? Make it his only issue?

[EOTE]

191. I don't expect him to make it his only issue.

Nor do I expect him to take immediate action on this. However, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to express some cynicism regarding this when in the past he's shown a wide gulf between his words and actions.

[cliffordu]

167. You mean like DADT??? Yep, he stands where he stands.

As do you.

[emulatorloo]

20. I understand that some DU'ers like throwing wet blankets on any positive news

[EOTE]

25. Do you have anything substantial to add, or just want to throw out fluff?

I understand some people get giddy over everything that Obama says without actually paying attention to his, you know, ACTIONS.

[emulatorloo]

51. Are you able to converse without being nasty and divisive?

I will reiterate what I said below and add a few things.

Obama is the first sitting president to endorse marriage equality. That is historic, and a big deal despite efforts of a handful of DU'ers to attempt to diminish it.

As to Obama's ACTIONS, despite the endlessly promoted "cynicism" of fellow DU'ers, Obama was able to get DADT repealed.

Additionally, the Justice Department is no longer enforcing DOMA. Next step will be the repeal of DOMA, as long as Romney does not get elected and the Congress is not under Republican control.

So forgive me if I am cynical about "DU cynicism" about Obama and gay rights issues - it doesn't have a very good track record.

Meanwhile in RomneyLand:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125136117
Mitt Romney Reiterates Opposition To Gay Marriage And Civil Unions

[EOTE]

53. Says the one who responds to a legitimate OP with an insult.

Obama LET DADT be repealed, he really didn't do anything to further that along. Congrats to him for letting it happen, though.

However, Obama has proven many times in the past that his words and actions don't always jibe. I'm happy that he's said what he did, but I'm waiting for actual actions.

But you're more than welcome to continue lowering the bar and insisting that we should be happy that Obama is sometimes on the right side of an issue.

[emulatorloo]

61. Good grief, stop putting words in people's mouths

and can the vitriolic hyperbole.

As to your historical revisionism, good luck with that.

[EOTE]

64. And what words might those be?

You're extremely vague with your complaints. You've got spittle inducing anger, yet you can't seem to note exactly what words of mine create such a furor in you.

[emulatorloo]

69. I'm not angry. You are projecting.

[EOTE]

70. So a bunch of spittle and no substance.

It's OK, I wasn't actually expecting an answer.

[emulatorloo]

72. You're still projecting

[EOTE]

74. And you have still yet to offer any information of substance.

But hey, you're clearly someone who believe more in flash than actual substance. Remember what the Beatles said, "All you need are pretty words".

[emulatorloo]

93. I gave you my answers in post #51

You responded to one by spouting revisionist history, which was refuted by at least one other poster besides me.

You ignored the other one completely.

Doubling down on your psychological projection is not going to change those facts to any rational person reading this sub thread.

[EOTE]

102. No, actually you haven't.

You still haven't explained to me why I should be so damned impressed by words when it's quite clear that Obama follows through on his words when it's convenient for him to. I've been stung by the PO, I've been stung by his handling of MMJ and others. I'll give Obama my support when he's earned it.

[inna]

205. lol that was a good one... project much? (question purely rhetorical)

[SunsetDreams]

57. Nailed it!

[cliffordu]

171. Well.....

How ironic

[SidDithers]

190. Yup. Lots of DUers...

Well said.

Sid

[rufus dog]

100. Politically that would have been ignorant

It was obvious NC referendum was going down in flames. He could have jumped in front of that train and then made it a "referendum" on Obama. That would have been such a wise move to take a double hit.

[cliffordu]

172. Yep, precisely.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

112. He could have waited until after the election (and he won) I suppose

He's now climbed out into a very politically perilous limb when it comes to some swing states. Maybe not as perilous as it might have been in 2004 when the Republicans used gay marriage to attack John Kerry (even though he didn't even actually support it) but the right-wing is going to milk this for all it's worth from now until November. Probably a good thing that President Obama decided to do it now instead of waiting a few more weeks or months.

[EOTE]

116. I don't know if this is going to help or hurt him politically.

I honestly don't. Sure it might hurt him in certain swing states, but it very well might help in others where progressives are extremely hungry for a bone to be thrown to them.

The right-wing may milk this until the election, but I have a feeling they might be doing so at their own peril.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

118. Right

Support for marriage equality has increased since 2004 as have the number of states where it's been legalized (and people can take note of the fact that those states haven't been reduced to pillars of salt). There will still be some people receptive to the right-wing's anti-gay bigotry but maybe now that the first POTUS in history has endorsed marriage equality, maybe people will finally start actually thinking more about the issue and start challenging some of the misinformation and assumptions. I think that President Obama made the right call. It sounded like it's been coming for a while now.

[treestar]

9. You just knew there'd be one

Along with the usual "fight" meme - how is the POTUS to "fight" for it? I guess probably someone will soon declare that it is easy - all he has to do is write an EO. Or use reconciliation.

And then there's the bully pulpit. The President should mention no other issues, ever. Maybe he can discuss his love of pot occasionally.

[Solomon]

31. Nothing short of divorcing Michelle and marrying a

man will do. But let's not fool ourselves, they'll be a hue and cry about why he didnt do it sooner, and just because he did it doesn't mean he's fighting for it.

[emulatorloo]

65. Trust me, even that would not be good enough

[Lionessa]

73. If you actually believe anyone anywhere relating to the pro-side of

marriage equality wants Obama to do anything other than marry who he wants and stay married to whom he wants, you are one f'ed up spinasster.

[Solomon]

76. um... okay.

[joeybee12]

34. Actually, it's not much of a change from what he's said before...

States rights is what he's pushing.

[Pab Sungenis]

186. Congrats, you have the first cynical response complaining about us not celebrating enough.

Dad goes up to his son and says "you should have a bicycle." Six months later and there's still no bicycle. You want the kid to throw a party because his dad said he should have a bicycle.

Celebrate deeds, not actions. When DOMA is dead and buried, then we celebrate.

[bigwillq]

4. Well, he IS a politician

Anything to get re-elected, right?!?!?

I think it's a little bit of both. But I am happy he publicly said what he did.

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. I think his "evolution" was fast-tracked (unintentionally) by VP Biden.

Who knew heat could influence evolution?

[emulatorloo]

19. I think VP's statements were part of the rollout.

[MineralMan]

32. Yup. I said just that a couple of days ago.

Biden's comment was a foretaste of what President Obama was going to say.

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. Judging by Carney's performances at press briefings, he wasn't let in on the plan. n/t

[MineralMan]

68. No, I think Carney knew. But, it's not his place

to break something like that. I watched the briefing, and then I was sure this announcement was about to happen.

[MineralMan]

7. Ah...cynicism.

Here's the thing: In some ways, this was a risky position for him to take, so I do believe he means it. Some people will not vote for him because of it. The rest of us need to make sure that Democrats turn out in record numbers at the polls in November. What happens depends on all of us.

Don't just go and vote; take people with you to the polls.

GOTV 2012!

[Politicalboi]

8. It's a risk

It could hurt him.

[elleng]

18. Yes, it could, in certain places,

and folks are foolish if they don't recognize this.
Its likely not to be a major issue in most places, logically, but logic doesn't prevail often, these days.

[regnaD kciN]

30. It could hurt him BIG...

Remember, the polls are currently very close, and he is dependent on picking up swing states like Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If this decision costs him a few percentage points of the vote in any of those places, we well could be looking at President Mittens and a solid Republican/Tea Party Congress.

Look at it this way: at this point back in 1996, Bill Clinton had a much larger lead over Bob Dole than Obama currently has over Rmoney. Yet he still felt the need to "tack to the right" with both DOMA and the welfare elmination (oops...I meant "reform&quot bill. At the same time, and facing a bigger political challenge, Obama took a step which is far more likely to cost him votes than to gain him any. And this is "cynical?"

[progressoid]

10. He doesn't have to fight for it.

He's leaving it up to the states.

[cali]

13. If he's re-elected he'll be appointing SC Justices.

[Pab Sungenis]

187. More Justices like Elena Kagan?

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.

[Ikonoklast]

192. See post #163.

There is no federal constitutional right for any type of marraige. Marraige is not mentioned once anywhere in that document.


That is why the states call the shots on marraige laws.

What about Kagan's answer is wrong?

[Pab Sungenis]

193. Loving v. Virginia.

Established that the 14th Amendment barred discriminatory marriage laws. That established the Federal right to marry.

[Ikonoklast]

196. Ruling was correctly based on discrimination and equal protection under that amendment.

Once again, where specifically in that document are marraige rights spelled out?

Loving was a ruling.

Kagan answered correctly.

She wasn't asked the question you are answering.

[Pab Sungenis]

197. Are you saying there's no discrimination in anti-gay-marriage laws?

Loving applies. Loving established that there is a right to marry under the 14th Amendment. Kagan denied that.

[Ikonoklast]

202. Straw man.

I said no such thing.

Loving was based specifically on racial discrimination, not sexual orientation, and not marraige.

There needs to be a test case presented to the SC using Loving as the framework for the argument that states are not allowed to use orientation as a reason to discriminate, just as race cannot be used.

[Lionessa]

71. And why should human rights be left to the states?

If he is indeed for marriage equality, then he should be for federal equality, not more of this states' rights crap.

[progressoid]

83. Agreed

The skeptic in me thinks this was a was a way to give himself a political escape. He can say he supports it & when pressured he can just play the states-rights card.

[treestar]

163. Marriage is a state function

There is no federal marriage law. I don't see a way around that.

[Pab Sungenis]

194. Loving v. Virginia.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

[treestar]

195. That interpreted a state law as unconstitutional

There was never a federal marriage law. This is a court ruling that a state cannot infringe on the right to marry.

The federal government can't. You might say there is DOMA, but you'd also say that it was unconstitutional.

[Pab Sungenis]

198. The state laws were unconstitutional

because they conflicted with the FEDERAL Constitution.

The same thing applies here.

And, yes, DOMA is unconstitutional. But with people like Kagan on the Court we can't count on it being ruled as such.

[treestar]

203. Kagan?

Why would she have a legal opinion that provided prohibitions against gay marriage were constitutional? But be that as it may, who would Rmoney nominate?

[Pab Sungenis]

204. Kagan: "There is no Constitutional right to same sex marriage."

That is probably the same answer anyone nominated by Romney would give.

[cali]

11. This is an enormous step in fighting for it.

That can't be overstated. We need to have his back so he has the opportunity to fight for it for the next four years. And the greatest way he can fight for it is by appointing SCOTUS members.

[Enrique]

12. it's a ploy in the right direction

up to now his ploy has been to be against gay marriage, to get votes from a different voter bloc and take his own base for granted.

Now he's expressing the views of his base, which is a good thing.

[elleng]

14. and we DUers don't WANT him to get donations, and get re-elected???

And we want him to spend time and effort to fight in the 50 States?
Are we REAL here?

[dionysus]

38. there's DUers that have been campaigning against him since 2007, who most certainly want him to lose

it'll really burn them when he finishes his second term and their revenge goes unfulfilled....

[elleng]

42. Right. Thanks again, dion.

Hope there's a good Masterpiece on tonight; don't want to spend the next 12 hours with negative agonizing.

[dionysus]

47. i'm going to work on the garden myself, it beats stress to a pulp

[elleng]

55. LUCKY!

Sure does! No garden here, but going to see 1776 at Ford's Theater Friday afternoon.

[ProSense]

16. The statement

by the ACLU sums it up:

Until now, the president has only favored civil unions, although he had said his views on same-sex marriage were “constantly evolving.” While in office, President Obama and his administration have taken critical strides toward LGBT equality by refusing to defend the discriminatory and unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act in court and pushing Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and reaffirming support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002665391

July 2011: DOJ comes out swinging against DOMA
http://www.keennewsservice.com/2011/07/04/doj-comes-out-swinging-against-doma/

[emulatorloo]

17. First POTUS to endorse marriage equality

But go ahead, do your best to try to diminish that.

Meanwhile, in RomneyLand:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125136117
Mitt Romney Reiterates Opposition To Gay Marriage And Civil Unions

[SunsetDreams]

21. Good Gawd!!!nt

[gratuitous]

23. I understand what you're saying

After all, if the President had made his decision a weensy bit earlier (how about three years earlier), it might have made a difference in North Carolina. In fact, after the Vice President's comments over the weekend, the President had a golden opportunity to take that ball and run with it. Instead, we got treated to three days of "What the hell did he just say?" directed at various times to various people in the administration and on the campaign staff. Everyone got confused, and it was frankly a mell of a hess.

Then comes the North Carolina vote, and like a stable door being securely fastened once the horse has fled, the President's announcement today of all days has the cynical tang of pandering for votes once the latest indignity has been inflicted. The fact that it's my vote being pandered doesn't excuse the studied silence of the previous 36 months. Part of sitting in the Big Chair is the obligation to provide leadership, and get out front on issues. "But you're not being fair! The President's statement is heueueuege! Don't be such a Debbie Downer!" Tough. I get to say when it looks like wet noodlery, and today's statement - at long last - isn't even al dente.

[JoePhilly]

28. Let me help ... please move these to their new location.

[Solomon]

35. That thing should have wheels on it.

Brakes aren't necessary.

[FSogol]

45. +1 n/t

[chowder66]

75. Perfect. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

208. +1000. The good news is this thread hasn't even made 10 recs. That's progress at DU.

[Rex]

33. Actions speak louder than words, true

but why would he publicly state something if he did not believe in it and follow up? He did for DADT and he will do so for gay marriage imo.

[EOTE]

36. You mean like his statements that he'd be friendly to MMJ?

And that he'd support a public option?

Why on earth would he have stated those things publicly if he didn't believe in them and follow up?

[ecstatic]

40. There weren't enough votes for the public option

When did he say he'd be friendly to MMJ?

[EOTE]

50. He took the PO off the table before the debate even began.

Per big pharma's request.

And here are quite a few quotes where he said he'd be friendly to MMJ. Forgot already?

http://www.gazette.com/articles/promises-117589-campaign-marijuana.html

He's gone on to continue those same damned policies he railed against.

[chowder66]

92. Could you post a link on the PO deal being taken off the table by Obama please?

Thanks.

[ecstatic]

37. Are you going to fight for it?

From the tone of your post, I'm guessing, no. Otherwise, why tear down the first ever sitting President to endorse gay marriage? Why spew more negativity towards the guy who, if reelected, will be in charge of appointing SC justices and signing laws (which will likely include more protections for gay couples)?

[Lionessa]

78. I've been doing everything I can to support marriage equality

which doesn't add up to much in places like Idaho, Texas, and AZ. But I do try and I do vote with it in mind, not only it, but it's there.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. He's already been fighting for it.

Dropping the defense of DOMA on constitutional grounds was a big thing.

States can ban marriage equality all they like. If DOMA is overturned, there will be no stopping the Full Faith and Credit clause from applying. Your state may not allow same sex couples to marry, but they will have to honor the marriages of other states, and the point will quickly become moot. These marriage inequality bans will be embarrassing relics to be quietly disposed of like other silly rules.

[Bluerthanblue]

52. good points!

[inna]

206. throwing punches here and there for political reasons, not to be confused with "fighting"

[Bolo Boffin]

207. right

[Hell Hath No Fury]

44. This should tell you what you need to know:

"...and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own."

It appears to me to be "throw The Gays a bone" day. Again.

[dionysus]

48. .

there there, it'll be okay...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

56. The minute he comes out unequivocally for --

federal rights for gays to marry, then I will be impressed and say, "Bravo, Mr. President!". Until then...

[Lionessa]

81. Exactly. If it is a human right, then it can't be voted on state by state.

And it is a human right.

[ieoeja]

105. He urged Congress to repeal DOMA. So there you go.

Or do you mean he has to open up a federal department of marriages and empower federal authorities to perform marriages?

He could push for legislation to force the States to allow same sex marriage ... but that would be unconstitutional. So it appears his options are repeal DOMA and creating a federal department of marriage.

Given that a repeal of DOMA forces every state to give full faith and credit to same gender marriages performed in other states, I would think that would be enough at the federal legislative/executive level.

The best thing would be for the Supremes to rule state bans on same gender marriages unconstitutional. Because we have already seen gay marriage used as a ping-pong ball: legalized then relegalized. Until the Supreme Court weighs in, this is probably never going to end.

[treestar]

165. How can that be done?

With the framework we have for state vs. federal power? There is no "federal marriage" and never has been. It's part of the police powers left to the states.

[AtomicKitten]

62. "throw the gays a bone" day

Proof positive that there's not a goddamn thing he could say or do
that would not be pissed on by some here.

[Pab Sungenis]

200. He could.

He could have left out the "states rights" bullshit.

I didn't piss on him when he signed the DADT repeal. I won't piss on him when (if) he signs DOMA repeal. I won't piss on him when he puts someone unequivocally for marriage equality forward for the Supreme Court.

Deeds, not words, deserve praise.

[Pab Sungenis]

188. Or "throw a bone...

...then tug on a string and yank it away again" day.

[Bake]

46. Umm, I wouldn't call this a ploy to get re-elected.

If it is, he needs a new strategist. What it IS, is a courageous stand for what's right and just.

Bake

[Pab Sungenis]

189. I'd call it a ploy.

Gay support for Democrats dropped 15% between 2008 and 2010. It was enough to kick some Blue Dogs to the curb. If 15-20% of gay voters stay home in November it throws some swing states into play. And it certainly keeps some House seats out of the party's grasp.

I think he did this to shore up support among the gay community. Especially after the backlash against Amendment 1.

[Bake]

199. We disagree.

I seriously doubt he took the calculated risk of losing support among independents in order to shore up support in the LGBT community.

And make no mistake, this WILL cost him votes among independents unless the issue is squarely and firmly addressed in terms of FAIRNESS. May cost him votes anyway.

He took a courageous stand (something you will never hear about Mitt Rmoney) and did the RIGHT THING. I applaud him for it.



Bake

[WI_DEM]

49. Let's see, a state critical to his re-election (NC) voted against marriage equality and you say

this is just politics.

Nice try.

[chowder66]

59. Announcing this before the NC vote wouldn't have changed anything

and it would have been seen as political as well.

Is it possible that his disappointment with the NC vote yesterday helped him to evolve?

Some will say it is political today (why? is it because O is not allowed to evolve?).
I don't know what is in this mans mind nor am I going to pretend that I do. He made the statement and he has been doing quite a bit to show support of the LGBT community.

"It’s an interesting footnote to the debate over Obama’s stance on gay marriage — the fact is, Obama’s basically doing all the things marriage equality advocates want him to do already. Even if he is doing it without saying explicitly whether he supports marriage rights for LGBT couples.

Advocates of marriage equality acknowledge the president supports the repeal of the Defense Of Marriage Act, and presides over a Justice Department that will no longer defend the law in court. They’re happy he’s come out against state ballot initiatives like the one voters in North Carolina will consider Tuesday that would ban legal recognition for same-sex couples. They appreciate that his administration has expanded legal rights to same-sex couples, including hospital visitation."

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/obama-gay-marriage-support.php

To be cynical about this is the cynics problem. I'm for evolution and progress and that is exactly what happened here.

He is a politician and politics is part of the process so I do believe his advisors would have looked into the numbers and the climate on this. It is smart to do so. As has been noted elsewhere, he took a risk. I'm not sure how big that risk is since many believed him to be for this all along which may have been one other reason to go ahead and reveal his position on this.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[phleshdef]

60. Baby steps. If he doesn't get re-elected, he can't fight to repeal DOMA or anything else we need.

I'd rather he beat around the bush a bit if it really helps him get re-elected in states like NC. This is about survival to win the war.

[Blaukraut]

66. I doubt it's a ploy. This could cost him NC and OH, and possibly the election n/t

[yellowcanine]

67. So would you rather he had not said it? Just curious.

Putting in the damned if he does, damned if he does not box.......

[Lionessa]

84. No, my post was in response the the six or so OPs demanding donations

since the President made a nice speech.

[SunsetDreams]

94. So you created an OP

in response to several OP's giving links to give donations to the Presidents re-election campaign?
I'm sorry but that just boggles my mind.

[Lionessa]

95. Again, no, you are spinning. The OPs weren't just offering links.

The titles alone practically demand contributions.

[emulatorloo]

98. So DU'ers were forcing you to donate to the Obama campaign?

Wow, that must be an HTML 6 feature!

[Lionessa]

104. Are you incapable of language comprehension. I said demanding, not forcing.

If my being a voice of "hey wait a minute, don't let the salesman sell you a lemon" person bothers you, well tough poots.

[SunsetDreams]

108. "hey wait a minute, don't let the salesman sell you a lemon"

Ahh it's been made clear now, your thread was in opposition to donations for the re-election campaign of the President.

Yeah, I know it's only been an hour or so, but does he just think it or [View all]

Last edited Wed May 9, 2012, 04:23 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

IS HE GOING TO FIGHT FOR IT.

If not, then it's just a ploy to get donations and re-elected.

PS This OP is in response to all the threads popping up demanding contributions to Obama's campaign because he said something, again. jThose threads and the authors are the dead giveaway that this is likely a ploy, imo.

I don't think those threads and the authors are the problem here.

[Lionessa]

111. IF someone was to donate strictly for this issue, then yes, that's what I'm saying.

[emulatorloo]

115. Are you incapable of recognizing humourous teasing?

You can start any thread you like.

But if DU'ers are "demanding" you do something, it is pretty easy not to do it.

My quarrel with your thread is that you are minimizing a pretty historic moment. Obama is the first President to endorse marriage equality. That is a very big deal.

The people who are responding positively to your thread are minimizing that, and going further by trying to diminish a number of positive things the Obama admin has gotten done in pushing for equal civil rights.

[SunsetDreams]

107. I'm not spinning what you said

No, my post was in response the the six or so OPs demanding donations

since the President made a nice speech.

Do you think that threads calling for donations for the re-election campaign are bad?

Again, no, you are spinning. The OPs weren't just offering links.

The titles alone practically demand contributions.

Did they MAKE you do anything?

[Lionessa]

96. No, I agree it is an important step, but it isn't one that ranks, imo

high enough for all the demands of contributions happening here.

[SunsetDreams]

77. Where did you go? nt

[scheming daemons]

89. this thread blows. you're moving the goalposts

[Lionessa]

101. No I'm not. But it is good to remind people that he is a pol

He is a pol that says one thing and does another.

He's a pol that already gave himself an "out" of actually doing anything about marriage equality.

He's a pol that may or may not deserve the demand for funds going on here at DU over his words.

I vote may not. Sure I'll vote for him, but I'm not contributing for this. He'll have to do something not just say something.

[scheming daemons]

110. a president's words are powerful. saying something IS doing something.

Bully pulpit

[emulatorloo]

117. And meanwhile, his Justice Dept is not enforcing DOMA

So is is doing things, but some DU'ers either don't know that or want to minimize what he is doing.

[treestar]

166. So true! How many times has that been invoked before?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

123. Will your Romney say one thing and do another?

[Lionessa]

127. DO you guys have anything other than BS to throw? Really, grow up.

Do you really think the president would have come out with this statement if there wasn't a heck of a lot of pressure, climaxed by Joe Biden's comments, to take a stand one way or another?

NO! If the pres thought all his Dems were perfectly happy with him as you guys seem to want to enforce through your ridiculous strawman meme that anyone unhappy with aspects of Obama's presidency are Reps or are going to vote for Reps, there would be no news today. Tired and stale and stupid accusation.

President said to keep the pressure on him and regardless of your whimpy issues, I'll do as he asked.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

159. no I don't think there was pressure

[Barely]

119. You didn't think that all the way through

If it were "just a ploy to get donations and re-elected" as you say, he wouldn't have said it at all.

Civil Unions play to a wider audience than full-blown marriage equality. People here were going to donate all along, anyway. People who support gay marriage were going to vote for Obama, anyway just because civil unions are better than Romneys "lol, no way gay people!"

Independents who do not support gay marriage but do support civil unions are probably unhappy right now.

Basically, he just pissed off more people than he made happy.

[Lionessa]

120. He'll never get votes from those agains gay marriage rights,

sorry, he just won't. And those in favor will likely vote for him regardless. The only thing that this does is bring those effected by it to the table with their wallets.

I wouldn't be quite so suspect if certain key individuals here hadn't immediately started using it to push folks into contributing. I was just as stoked as the next guy, then the threads started demanding money.......

[Rosa Luxemburg]

122. so what?

[Lionessa]

124. So I had an opinion about that type of political manipulation and I typed it.

And your problem is?

[ecstatic]

129. I get that you feel demoralized

And it's your right to feel that way. I'm sorry about what happened yesterday too, but I think that spreading negativity around does more harm than good.

If people aren't motivated to vote in November, then you'll have Romney picking SC justices and signing bigoted, tea-party backed laws. Not to mention all the hateful, anti-women laws that are being passed around the nation.

We have work to do and can't afford to pout or spread negativity. I've already seen posts where people aren't excited anymore about the history that was made today due to negative posts found right here on DU.

[Lionessa]

131. I'm in no way encouraging anyone to not vote for Obama,

however, I do feel that reality must be looked at, and I'm not the only one noticing that his words by his own qualification have no substance indicating that his second term will be any different than the first with regard to marriage equality.

And to my mind, voting for someone, and contributing are two different things. And y'know the people posting "hurry up and contribute now" type posts could have waited a couple of days, and wouldn't have noticed probably. I didn't create that which I observed, I only reacted to it openly and honestly as I see it.

Thank you for your courteous disagreement, it is refreshing.

[Barely]

125. He would have gotten the votes from civil union supporters

There really is a significant group of Independents out there who are ok with civil unions, but not marriage.

This is a step too far to the left for those folks.

He's only going to lose support from this. Gay marriage advocates are Dems are were voting for him anyway. He's not gaining a single vote from this because the other option is a Republican who isn't going to give the gay community a damned thing other than a Supreme Court justice lilely to push them further away from equality.

[Lionessa]

132. Independents wouldn't contribute or not based on this issue, only the GLBTs

and those strongly in favor of marriage equality would open up their pocket books for this ploy.

Secondly, those just mentioned comment all the time that civil unions are not the acceptable answer. I'll go with their opinion.

[ScreamingMeemie]

134. Really? Ya think so? That's not what this week's poll said about Indies...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/same-sex-marriage-support_n_1499247.html

The Tuesday poll found that 65 percent of Democrats support same-sex marriage, as do 57 percent of Independents. Only 22 percent of Republicans agree, seeming to show that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney was making the right call by reiterating his opposition to same-sex marriage on Monday.


You can breathe easy now...I hope.

[uppityperson]

201. Marriage equality, please. Are you saying he should continue supporting "separate but equal" instead

[maddezmom]

130. then don't donate

[Lionessa]

133. I didn't. Then I opined. The problem is?

[ScreamingMeemie]

135. .

See my reply below. You are misinformed when it comes to Independents. Thank you.

[one_voice]

126. BULLSHIT THREAD!

[Lionessa]

128. Only if your head is in the sand.

[Ruby the Liberal]

136. So Obama is full if shit and just pandering for campaign contributions

or are we standing on the wrong patch of sand - because that seems like exactly what your OP was "concerned" about.

[Lionessa]

138. Never said he was full of shit, did say he's likely pandering.

Why do you guys have to escalate what's typed into something hateful? Are you all incapable of simple comprehension?

[SunsetDreams]

140. Why do you have to escalate what's said

Lionessa
138. Never said he was full of shit, did say he's likely pandering.

Why do you guys have to escalate what's typed into something hateful? Are you all incapable of simple comprehension?

...by President Obama as pandering for donations? That is why you created this thread, because you thought it was a ploy. You couldn't stand that there were OP's going up suggesting people donate. That is what they were doing. Regardless of whether you call it a demand, the OP's didn't have the power of MAKING people donate. Yet here you are... hey WAIT...think before you donate! He's only doing this because it's a ploy to get donations and to get re-elected. I find more wrong with your OP than the others giving links for a donation. You also said that the authors could have waited a few days to post those, and you might not have noticed. Couldn't you also have waited a few days to announce that you thought it was a ploy and just join in the celebration of this historic announcement? NO other sitting President has EVER came out in support of marriage equality, and yet here you are labeling it as a political ploy.

[Ruby the Liberal]

141. Where are you seeing hate and why are you calling people idiots

because they are asking you to clarify your original comments?

Starting to hear cracks again...

[Lionessa]

142. I'm getting real tired of the strawman questions. If don't see them

then that's your issue.

When I need a mother again, I'll let you know, otherwise consider any similar comments to be ignored, not you as a poster, just these trying to parent me where you've not been invited to do so.

I tread where others fear, deal with it.

[Ruby the Liberal]

146. You accused others of hate, just before you called them idiots

and you are now accusing me for Strawmen because I called you on it.

Take the marbles out of your fists and type clearly. What is your point - that the President is insincere, pandering and your role is to warn people not to get caught up in sending his campaign money?

Cuz if that isn't the case, I would really, really like to understand what it is you are trying to communicate.

[HangOnKids]

150. Treading Where Others "Fear" Is Not Why You Are Being Questioned.

But you go right on thinking that.

[Solomon]

143. When digging yourself in a hole, sometimes it's wise

to just stop digging.

[Lionessa]

145. I'm not in a hole. Nice try though.

I call em as I see em, and if I was the only one noticing, well perhaps a problem, if I was the only one noticing on DU, again, perhaps a problem. I like the company I'm in and recognize those with whom I share this observation as people who have always and unwaveringly been in favor of full and complete human rights for GLBT persons.

[Ruby the Liberal]

147. Call what as you see what?

Concern that people will get duped by a politician pandering for their cash?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

144. You would have a good point if he didn't stop enforcing DOMA. Boy, liberals sure know how to be

Debby Downers, don't we?

[great white snark]

148. The leader of the free world supports marriage equality.

Freakin' a that sounds good doesn't it? How can anyone be down at this time...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

152. I know! We should be celebrating! Hell, we SHOULD be uniting!!

[Ruby the Liberal]

149. Or full court press for DADT...

[AngryOldDem]

151. It's just all too convenient.

He could have expressed this at any time. He didn't need Joe Biden, Arne Duncan, a grilling of Jay Carney, and a vote in North Carolina to bring his true feelings to the fore.

As one pundit I heard say, how long does it take for a feeling to "evolve"? It must be an upcoming election date, obviously.

Color me extremely cynical about this until his actions match his words.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

153. Who cares?!??! He supports marriage equality! That's all I care about! Now, let's unite and kick

some Republican ass!!

[AngryOldDem]

156. I just want to make sure he's sincere about it, is all.

If it's not what he **truly** believes, I can't cheer that. Sorry. He's had plenty of opportunities to make his feelings known. Coming on the heels of what's happened since Sunday, I can't help but feel that a little political expediency may be at work here. But I'll reluctantly give him the benefit of the doubt.

I agree it's time for some GOP ass-kickin'.

[treestar]

168. By that token no one could evolve anything ever

What about the people who are totally against marriage equality - don't you want them to evolve in time too?

[salin]

155. Interesting.

[SunsetDreams]

157. Where have you been?

I needed some of that hours ago! Please share

[salin]

158. Lol - was still at work...

perhaps there was a reason I was drawn to the microwave and bags of popcorn as soon as I got home! I am happy to share

[Lionessa]

173. Cranky much? I hope unloading on me makes your evening with others

more cordial.

[cliffordu]

174. Go watch Rachel and let a professional crush your argument and "concern"

You're "argument" is crap, and off the mark.

Have a nice night, but do us a favor:

Find another bogus posit to peddle.

Something more substantive or sophisticated, maybe.

Work at it, you'll come up with something.

I have faith in you!!

[Lionessa]

176. Go tell your children what to do. I'm not in the least obedient.

Or hadn't you noticed.

[cliffordu]

178. No, I hadn't.

I have little interest in anything about you.

Except your bogus posit.

[Lionessa]

183. It isn't bogus, and it turns out not to even be a posit, in that he got

exactly what I suspected he was after . . . the wealth of the GLBT community and those that love and care about their lives without actually changing his position from the one he had in 1994 in Illinois, and specifically excluding his actually doing anything about his newfound old opinion by touting states rights over human rights and we already know how states rights are going... not good.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002667397

[just1voice]

177. "Ah, bullshit. Get a job or a fucking hobby. Or a life."

Wow, you think that is a legitimate response to someone's concerns over equal rights for all?

Damn...

[cliffordu]

179. Legitimate?

Yep. I do believe my retort was a valid response to the garbage that person dribbled all over the floor around here.

The Prez is walking the talk.

Listen to the Rachael Maddow show from tonight for a better argument than I am willing to type. Life is short and she's a genius..


As for the second guessing and the monday morning quarterbacking,

G-I-G-O

That's my one little rule.

[joshcryer]

175. Obama supports his positions, that is a fact as shown by his Presidency.

He does exactly what he says he'll do if he has the power to do it (thus the drone wars).

[lonestarnot]

185. Some personal deliberation takes thinkers a while. Give it a break.

[Tarheel_Dem]

209. Then don't donate. Everyone knows there are different political parties represented here....

but this is just too obvious. The "fight" you're calling for takes ($$$$$)! I'm a monthly donor, but because of the nastiness of your comments throughout this thread, I made another $50 donation, while thinking of your hatefulness toward the president and fellow DU'ers in this thread.

Considering how you feel, I don't think the president would even want your money.