Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obama finally does something good

[Oh, ha ha ha. Obama's leaving up to the states. So the headline is wrong. Replace "does" with "says." What a weasel. --lambert]

Endorses marriage equality.

Nice use of cultural markers.

0
No votes yet

Comments

jest's picture
Submitted by jest on

I'm surprised he didn't say all teh gays "look like his son," or some other infuriatingly condescending bulls__

He's still an asshole. Albeit a slightly less homophobic one; at least for today, anyway.

We'll see how long this lasts.

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

Socrates in the Republic identifies three types of good things: things that are good in themselves, things that are good for the effects they produce, and things that are good both in themselves and for the effects they produce.

Promoting marriage equality falls in the third category, as do all stands against all forms of discrimination. We must combat the unjust treatment that people receive based on their bare circumstances, because such treatment is wrong.

Beyond the rightness of marriage equality, however, standing against discrimination will lead to a greater unity among the working and middle classes. How often in the past have racism, sexism, ablism, gender identity discrimination, religious discrimination and more been used to split the plain people of this country and turn them against each other? It was famously used in the South during Jim Crow, but there are many other versions, subtle and pernicious, that continue to this day.

As we break down the barriers of race and gender and identity and ability that divide people, we gradually reveal the true dividing line of modern American society, the thing that really and genuinely separates some from others: class. Fighting against discrimination brings the People, the Masses, the 99% closer together and makes them stronger.

Submitted by lambert on

One less class and cultural marker to be used in a divide and conquer strategy.

Plus, a lot of Rs can come out of the closet now.

lookin206's picture
Submitted by lookin206 on

Well, I appreciate that he finally "evolved", sort of. Is he pushing to repeal DOMA? Well, no. He's wanting to leave it to the states. I think its time to turn ALL minority rights back to the states. Then NC can reenact it constitutional miscegenation ban again.

mass's picture
Submitted by mass on

Any time a sitting President lends his personal support to a cause such as this it only helps. It says more about the Democrats than it does Obama, I think. He is an extremely safe politician so I think it is safe to say he must have been under tremendous pressure to do this, which is great. It says to me that donors and Part supporters were playong hardball with this issue and they won. No turning back now. Wr are almost certainly past the point where both prevailing political parties can take a position against marriage equality and get a free pass. There is historical context to leaving it to the states, ie that is how laws barring whites and blacks from marrying were undone when the courts decided marriages in one state had to be honored in other states.

Submitted by lambert on

... but the real issue isn't the goodness of Obama but how to play hardball with him.

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

Amazing.

Now, Obama 'says' he supports gay marriage. And Glenn says:

It may very well be true that Obama took this step not out of any genuine conviction, but because he perceives that high levels of enthusiasm among the Democratic base generally and gay donors specifically are necessary for his re-election...I think it’s irrelevant.

He goes on to quote a commenter:

On this issue, Obama’s statement today will be remembered 20 years from now...Obama’s previous dithering on this issue, will be long forgotten.

OK, let me get this straight. While acknowledging that Obama's statement (not any action on his part) is pure pandering for money from gays and liberal campaign donors, everyone is encouraged to forget Obama's previous actual actions on this issue. Glenn lists a string of minor improvements for gays since 2008. Maybe those will produce real improvements.

But I think it's crucial NOT to forget the past. For example - that Obama repeatedly refused to speak to gay audiences or interviewers during the 2008 campaign, which the other candidates had no problem doing. That Obama was endorsed by and appeared with homophobic ministers, spouting homophobic rhetoric while he was standing on the stage with them during the campaign.

It might also be instructive NOT to forget the vast number of groups of people for whom he mouthed support on the campaign trail of 2008 who were ground under the wheels of the bus later during the campaign or during the subsequent 4 years.

Is there any evidence that this announcement will result in anything other than gay donors supporting Obama in 2012 only to be thrown under the bus later? Why would there be any other result?

Again, time will tell but expecting any other outcome given the previous iterations is illogical.

mass's picture
Submitted by mass on

It's an important statement and will be remembered far more than his previous actions inline withthe statusquo. Again, this is bigger than Obama and his statement is actually a reflection of the evolving opinion of the electorate more than anything else. Hard to cast his comments in a negative light, imo.

Submitted by lambert on

... we need to be asking "What have you done for me lately"?

shargash's picture
Submitted by shargash on

I think it does have an effect when a prominent person takes a position on a controversial topic, no matter how base the motives for it are. This is especially true when the prominent person is the president. If Abraham Lincoln had said, "I personally support full equality for negroes, but I think the question should be left to the individual states to resolve," it would have been a positive development. Lets just not get carried away in praising it.

jest's picture
Submitted by jest on

Lincoln really said "I don't really think all slaves need to be freed, but I'll do it anyway. Individual states be damned."

Again, Deeds > Words.

Abe's words on the subject were disappointing, but his deeds were not.

The Droner's words on the subject are less than disappointing, but his deeds still are disappointing.

Further, Obama's words have long since been exposed to be meaningless at best, and the opposite of what he conveys, at worst.