Obama doesn't support gay rights

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Silknor » Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:02 am UTC

nowfocus wrote:Obama stopped defending DOMA, repealed DADT, and appointed openly gay men to be social secretary and to a senior position in the military, reinstated LGBT month, came out in support of bullied gay teens, and filmed an 'it gets better video'.

He picks the fights he can win, and he can't win this one right now. Gay marriage is only going to get more popular, and when the support is there he will work hard to pass it.


Even in the wake of the NY bill, it seems unlikely that any president could get a federal marriage equality bill through Congress by the start of 2017. How many of the marriage equality bills that have passed so far would have succeeded if they required a 60% supermajority? New York's wouldn't have, and I'm sure some of the others wouldn't have either. Even in 2009 when there were 60 Democrats (including the 2 Independents) in the Senate, it was inconceivable that any amount of political capital could've made progress on such a bill. Ignoring that some supporters would say it's a state issue and they'd support it at a state level but not as a federal mandate, there simply weren't 60 votes in favor. And that was in a Senate that was far more Democratic than any time since the late 70s, and was probably more Democratic than anytime in the foreseeable future (big Democratic gains in 06 and 08 mean they have many more seats to defend in 12 and 14, and fewer pickup opportunities). Hell, even the Pelosi-controlled House, which passed plenty of progressive legislation that they knew didn't have a chance in the Senate didn't take up a same-sex marriage bill, much less pass it.

So while I do expect him to come out in favor of same-sex marriage sometime in his second term, I don't think he'll ever work hard to pass it. But that's not because he doesn't support it, but because it seems highly unlikely he could possibly expect success on that issue. And so rationally he'll conserve his efforts for places where has a chance of changing the law. And if by some chance it does turn out that a marriage equality bill has a reasonable chance, I really believe that Obama will fully support it and work hard to see it passed.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby nowfocus » Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:57 am UTC

Silknor wrote:So while I do expect him to come out in favor of same-sex marriage sometime in his second term, I don't think he'll ever work hard to pass it. But that's not because he doesn't support it, but because it seems highly unlikely he could possibly expect success on that issue. And so rationally he'll conserve his efforts for places where has a chance of changing the law. And if by some chance it does turn out that a marriage equality bill has a reasonable chance, I really believe that Obama will fully support it and work hard to see it passed.


Pretty much agreed on most counts - but I think you'd be surprised at how quickly things can change. I'm in Canada, and it would have been a stretch to think we would have gay marriage 5 years before we passed it. 5 years ago under 40% of Americans supported gay marriage. Now the majority of Americans support it. If support continues the trend and gets up to 65-70% the votes will follow, just like they did for DADT.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:06 am UTC

nowfocus wrote:
Silknor wrote:So while I do expect him to come out in favor of same-sex marriage sometime in his second term, I don't think he'll ever work hard to pass it. But that's not because he doesn't support it, but because it seems highly unlikely he could possibly expect success on that issue. And so rationally he'll conserve his efforts for places where has a chance of changing the law. And if by some chance it does turn out that a marriage equality bill has a reasonable chance, I really believe that Obama will fully support it and work hard to see it passed.


Pretty much agreed on most counts - but I think you'd be surprised at how quickly things can change. I'm in Canada, and it would have been a stretch to think we would have gay marriage 5 years before we passed it. 5 years ago under 40% of Americans supported gay marriage. Now the majority of Americans support it. If support continues the trend and gets up to 65-70% the votes will follow, just like they did for DADT.


Do you have a citation for american support of gay marriage?
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Garm » Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:11 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
nowfocus wrote:
Silknor wrote:So while I do expect him to come out in favor of same-sex marriage sometime in his second term, I don't think he'll ever work hard to pass it. But that's not because he doesn't support it, but because it seems highly unlikely he could possibly expect success on that issue. And so rationally he'll conserve his efforts for places where has a chance of changing the law. And if by some chance it does turn out that a marriage equality bill has a reasonable chance, I really believe that Obama will fully support it and work hard to see it passed.


Pretty much agreed on most counts - but I think you'd be surprised at how quickly things can change. I'm in Canada, and it would have been a stretch to think we would have gay marriage 5 years before we passed it. 5 years ago under 40% of Americans supported gay marriage. Now the majority of Americans support it. If support continues the trend and gets up to 65-70% the votes will follow, just like they did for DADT.


Do you have a citation for american support of gay marriage?


Here's Nate Silver's analysis of the data.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/gay-marriage-state-by-state-tipping.html

According to the data that he cites (link on the page), support for Gay Marriage exceeded 30% in only 6 states in 1995.

edit: which is to say, we've come a really long way in 16 years.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Lucrece » Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:06 am UTC

Eh, he's just a cunning, spineless dipshit to me, like almost every politician.

In the end, I'll still vote for the Democrats; not because they're abusing my trust as a gay person, but because they're the ones filling up the SCOTUS seats.

There's a lot of cleaning up to do on SCOTUS, and it behooves minorities that a Democrat stay in office for a long time to make up for the disaster that was all those Bush replacements.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby mmmcannibalism » Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:21 am UTC

Small note, anyone have information about the stance on gay marriage Obama's old church had? Seems like the type of thing that would indicate whether he is understating his support for gay marriage to maintain political capital or whether he is overstating it to maintain it.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

sje46
Posts: 4730
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:41 am UTC
Location: New Hampshire

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby sje46 » Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:28 am UTC

Belial wrote:
sje46 wrote:But yeah, I suppose that since he doesn't publicly support gay marriage, he opposes *all* gay rights *ever*.


Compare this statement to the title of the thread and then write me a 2 page paper on why you shouldn't have eaten those paint chips. Fingerpaint grudgingly accepted.

What are you on about? "Obama doesn't support gay rights". This implies that he doesn't give a shit about gay people, at all. Does it suck that he doesn't support gay marriage? Yes. But he does support many gay rights. And as disappointing his lack of support for gay marriage may be, that doesn't give us license to use rather hyperbolic language. At best it's sloppy language. At worst it's hyperbolic rhetoric to exaggerate what a dick Obama is (unconciously or not). OP complained about how biased the media is for Obama and named his thread "Obama doesn't support gay rights".

He does support gay rights. This is a literally fact.

Or you can accuse me of being mentally challenged. Whatever floats your raft, Bely.

Spoiler:
Or maybe inside the article Obama said "Oh, gay people? fuck them, they don't have rights!" . I wouldn't know because apparently OP wants the Wall Street Journal to have more subscribers.
General_Norris: Taking pride in your nation is taking pride in the division of humanity.
Pirate.Bondage: Let's get married. Right now.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Silknor » Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:36 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:Small note, anyone have information about the stance on gay marriage Obama's old church had? Seems like the type of thing that would indicate whether he is understating his support for gay marriage to maintain political capital or whether he is overstating it to maintain it.


I don't know, but given that he supported gay marriage as a state senator, it seems likely he privately supports it but believes he can't publicly say so. Certainly the old stance could be the less genuine one, but that doesn't seem very likely.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Belial » Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:12 pm UTC

sje46 wrote:Or you can accuse me of being mentally challenged. Whatever floats your raft, Bely.


Sigh. Okay, clearly we need to focus you a bit. Can you tell me the difference between "doesn't support" and "opposes"?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby omgryebread » Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:15 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
sje46 wrote:Or you can accuse me of being mentally challenged. Whatever floats your raft, Bely.


Sigh. Okay, clearly we need to focus you a bit. Can you tell me the difference between "doesn't support" and "opposes"?
Except, he does support gay rights. Not as strongly as we'd like, and maybe not even all gay rights, but it's clear the guy supports gay rights. There's a large area between "fully supports" and "doesn't support." And anything in that area is usually still referred to as support. So saying he doesn't support gay rights is false.


I never got the politician bashing. I always viewed them as no more dishonest, ambitious or corrupt than the average person. They're just better at it. It's not an easy job by any stretch of the imagination, and a lot of them could earn a lot more in the private sector. Pretty much any congressman could retire after 1 or 2 terms and get a sweet position on the board of some company where he shows up once a month for meetings. Plenty of them left high paying jobs in business or law. Of course there are greedy and corrupt ones, or ones who honestly seem in it to increase their income (maybe quitting governor of their state to pull in speaking fees coughcough). But I still can't help but think that people willing to put up with the all-consuming chaos that is being a national politician aren't actually pretty admirable. I can't imagine many of them enjoy breaking campaign promises or pulling parliamentary tricks. I honestly believe the vast majority of politicians have a sincere belief they are working to improve the country. (Maybe I'm biased, I wanted to be a congresswoman for Halloween instead of a princess.)
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Lucrece » Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:59 pm UTC

Well, given that the gay community still hasn't settled on what comprises "gay rights", it's hard to tell what constitutes support. Given that marriage involves the right to about 1,300 benefits and all the social significance, I'd say that he doesn't support those rights is fairly accurate.

He may support more of the set than the alternatives. When it comes to civil rights, though, it's kinda dickish to be told that you need to settle for less ;p.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby nowfocus » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:58 pm UTC

All that Obama has said is the gay marriage should be states issue. Can everyone bashing him for this please note that if this were a federal issue, there would be no gay marriage anywhere in the US. So perhaps you should ask yourselves whether you want it to be a federal issue right now.

And yeah, the thread title is silly. He clearly has supported many gay rights, and has probably done more for gays than any other president. That is unless Vanier thinks the only gay right is the right to marriage. Better would be "Obama doensn't support certain gay rights", but even better would be "Obama doesn't think gay marriage is a federal issue".

sourmìlk wrote:Do you have a citation for american support of gay marriage?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/support- ... cidental-p

mmmcannibalism wrote:Small note, anyone have information about the stance on gay marriage Obama's old church had?

Can't remember where, but I think they don't have a stance.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:00 pm UTC

nowfocus wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Do you have a citation for american support of gay marriage?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/support- ... cidental-p

That appears to indicate almost a majority, not a majority. It could go either way, considering the margin of error
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby mmmcannibalism » Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:27 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Well, given that the gay community still hasn't settled on what comprises "gay rights", it's hard to tell what constitutes support. Given that marriage involves the right to about 1,300 benefits and all the social significance, I'd say that he doesn't support those rights is fairly accurate.

He may support more of the set than the alternatives. When it comes to civil rights, though, it's kinda dickish to be told that you need to settle for less ;p.


I can't tell, is the 1300 meant hyperbolically, or am I really misunderstanding the effects of a marriage license.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby thc » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:29 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Well, given that the gay community still hasn't settled on what comprises "gay rights", it's hard to tell what constitutes support. Given that marriage involves the right to about 1,300 benefits and all the social significance, I'd say that he doesn't support those rights is fairly accurate.

He may support more of the set than the alternatives. When it comes to civil rights, though, it's kinda dickish to be told that you need to settle for less ;p.


I can't tell, is the 1300 meant hyperbolically, or am I really misunderstanding the effects of a marriage license.

No it's not a hyperbole. 1300 federal rights that accompany marriages that are recognized on a federal level (e.g., not gay marriages).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

User avatar
jakovasaur
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby jakovasaur » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:37 pm UTC

thc wrote:
mmmcannibalism wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Well, given that the gay community still hasn't settled on what comprises "gay rights", it's hard to tell what constitutes support. Given that marriage involves the right to about 1,300 benefits and all the social significance, I'd say that he doesn't support those rights is fairly accurate.

He may support more of the set than the alternatives. When it comes to civil rights, though, it's kinda dickish to be told that you need to settle for less ;p.


I can't tell, is the 1300 meant hyperbolically, or am I really misunderstanding the effects of a marriage license.

No it's not a hyperbole. 1300 federal rights that accompany marriages that are recognized on a federal level (e.g., not gay marriages).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

That's not exactly a citation. It's just some other guy who said the same thing. I couldn't find any explanation of where that number comes from, and most google results are just quoting that opinion piece. I'm curious how they got that number and what it means.

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby thc » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:53 pm UTC


User avatar
jakovasaur
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby jakovasaur » Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:02 pm UTC

Yeah, but it says that the list doesn't just include laws that create benefits, rights or privileges, but any laws that include terms about marriage. So really, it is just a list of "federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor." Also, there are only 1049 of them.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby nowfocus » Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:36 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:That appears to indicate almost a majority, not a majority. It could go either way, considering the margin of error

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/ ... B520110521
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

Golgavar
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:44 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Golgavar » Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:50 pm UTC

jakovasaur wrote: Also, there are only 1049 of them.


Yeah, but it's from 1997. I'd be surprised if there hasn't been any more detailed studies on the issue since then.

User avatar
jakovasaur
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby jakovasaur » Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:05 pm UTC

Golgavar wrote:
jakovasaur wrote: Also, there are only 1049 of them.


Yeah, but it's from 1997. I'd be surprised if there hasn't been any more detailed studies on the issue since then.

I'd just like to see it, because I'm curious. I'm having a hard time imagining how "rights and benefits" is defined so that there are 1300 of them that go along with being married.

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby thc » Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:25 pm UTC

jakovasaur wrote:Yeah, but it says that the list doesn't just include laws that create benefits, rights or privileges, but any laws that include terms about marriage. So really, it is just a list of "federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor." Also, there are only 1049 of them.

Perhaps not all of them are rights and benefits, but a lot of them are. I think just reading the summaries makes this pretty clear. Perhaps 1300 is an exaggeration, but it's not a hyperbole. The number of federal rights and benefits for married couples is on the order of 1300.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Lucrece » Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:15 am UTC

Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Belial » Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:18 pm UTC

On the subject of this thread, the Obama Administration has now filed court motions to delay the repeal of DADT.

Because he's such a fierce advocate of gay rights, obvs.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Dauric » Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:28 pm UTC

Belial wrote:On the subject of this thread, the Obama Administration has now filed court motions to delay the repeal of DADT.

Because he's such a fierce advocate of gay rights, obvs.


Be careful about what aspect of it you're complaining about.

DADT from Wikipedia:

The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who campaigned on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation.[13] At the time, per the December 21, 1993 Department of Defense Directive 1332.14,[14] it was legal policy (10 U.S.C. § 654)[15] that homosexuality is incompatible with military service and that persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were to be discharged.[13][16] The Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman, established the policies and procedures for discharging homosexual servicemembers.[17]

Congress overrode Clinton by including text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 absolute ban policy.[16] The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993,[18] issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.[16] This is the policy now known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". The phrase was coined by Charles Moskos, a military sociologist.


Banning homosexuals is still part of the language in the National Defense Authorization Act. DADT is an executive policy that prevents that part of the NDAA from being enforced. Until congress repeals the language in the NDAA that declares service and homosexuality to be mutually exclusive DADT is actually a good thing for gay service members. Unfortunately everyone thinks that it's DADT that is the source of the prohibition, when it's just got a catchier title.

Unfortunately this means that all the support to "repeal DADT" in congress is getting congress to write a law that prevents the use of the DADT policy, and thus forcing the executive to enforce the "mutually exclusivity" clause in the NDAA.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Belial » Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:36 pm UTC

In the case that that's the issue, I'm kindof curious why the administration isn't saying so.

But as long as we're getting specific, what they're filing motions against is the court order that suspended the separation of homosexual troops. Which gets around the problem you describe nicely, for the time being.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:36 pm UTC

This isn't some tricky case trying to ban DADT while still forcing out homosexuals.
The “emergency” request for a stay, filed late Thursday, asks that in the case Log Cabin Republicans v. United States the 9th Circuit once again suspend the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) injunction so the open service ban can remain in effect until the legislative repeal is certified.

Obama is requesting a stay so that he can still have the power to kick out homosexuals.
This latest maneuver by the President continues a pattern of doublespeak that all Americans should find troubling. All this does is further confuse the situation for our men and women in uniform,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director, combat veteran and captain in the United States Army Reserve. “Let me be clear – the president is asking the court for the power to continue threatening servicemembers with investigation and discharge, and the right to turn away qualified Americans from military service for no reason other than their sexual orientation. Even if the administration never uses that power, it is still wrong, and the Ninth Circuit was clear that there is no justification for continuing the violation of servicemembers’ constitutional rights. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is an offense to American values that should have been gone long ago. It is shameful that a president who has taken credit for opposing the policy is taking extreme measures to keep it on life support.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Dauric » Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:02 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:This isn't some tricky case trying to ban DADT while still forcing out homosexuals.
The “emergency” request for a stay, filed late Thursday, asks that in the case Log Cabin Republicans v. United States the 9th Circuit once again suspend the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) injunction so the open service ban can remain in effect until the legislative repeal is certified.

Obama is requesting a stay so that he can still have the power to kick out homosexuals.
This latest maneuver by the President continues a pattern of doublespeak that all Americans should find troubling. All this does is further confuse the situation for our men and women in uniform,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director, combat veteran and captain in the United States Army Reserve. “Let me be clear – the president is asking the court for the power to continue threatening servicemembers with investigation and discharge, and the right to turn away qualified Americans from military service for no reason other than their sexual orientation. Even if the administration never uses that power, it is still wrong, and the Ninth Circuit was clear that there is no justification for continuing the violation of servicemembers’ constitutional rights. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is an offense to American values that should have been gone long ago. It is shameful that a president who has taken credit for opposing the policy is taking extreme measures to keep it on life support.


And if you read the actual article itself that has decidedly less political hyperbole than the quote from the Log Cabin Republicans* you might note that the argument from the executive branch is that there's separation of powers issues...

*Log Cabin Republicans may be for the repeal of anti-homosexual-rights legislation, but they're still working for the Republicans to get the presidency in 2012 against Obama. Quotes from unbiased commentators would have more veracity than that one.

Interestingly, the brief argues that the 9th Circuit has misunderstood the government’s stance on DADT, and that the court based its reasoning to enforce the injunction, at least in part, on the idea that because the executive branch had moved to repeal the law the administration thought it was suspect. This, the DOJ argues, is not the case. While repeal is only a matter of weeks away, the brief argues the administration believes DADT is constitutionally sound, that there will be real harm in halting DADT enforcement before service chiefs have certified the repeal, and more than that, that it would allow one judge, Judge Virginia Phillips, to have overruled Congress’ decision that the repeal should be carefully coordinated. This, the brief summarizes, comes down to a matter of separation of powers.


... which may or may not be bullshit, but if it's not bullshit then failure to adhere to the proper method of tying the red tape could end up putting the repeal in bureaucratic limbo.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Silknor » Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:04 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:Banning homosexuals is still part of the language in the National Defense Authorization Act. DADT is an executive policy that prevents that part of the NDAA from being enforced. Until congress repeals the language in the NDAA that declares service and homosexuality to be mutually exclusive DADT is actually a good thing for gay service members. Unfortunately everyone thinks that it's DADT that is the source of the prohibition, when it's just got a catchier title.

Unfortunately this means that all the support to "repeal DADT" in congress is getting congress to write a law that prevents the use of the DADT policy, and thus forcing the executive to enforce the "mutually exclusivity" clause in the NDAA.


Which is why the bill that "repeals DADT" actually removes the original language from the NDAA. If you read the actual law, you won't find any reference to DADT except for a section header referring to "1993 policy". And what the section does is strike section 654 of U.S. Code 10 upon completion of the certification process (in addition to removing parts of the 1994 law you reference).

Heisenberg wrote:Obama is requesting a stay so that he can still have the power to kick out homosexuals.


Your phrasing implies that this power would still exist after the completion of the certification process from the DADT repeal bill last year. This is not true, that power would only exist in the interim period between whenever the 9th Circuit's decision becomes effective and when the DADT bill goes fully into effect (and I believe discharges have already been suspended). Once the repeal is fully enacted, the end result is the same. The only differences I see are:

Timing: Under a court overturning of the policy, DADT may cease before the full repeal is completed.
Reinstatment: If overturned by the courts, and upheld (directly or by denying certiorari) by the Supreme Court, then a future Congress could not reinstate either the original policy regarding homosexuals in the military or DADT. If however it is repealed by Congress and the decision of the 9th Circuit never takes effect, then some future Congress could reinstate either of those policies.
Politics: Politically it's worse for the Democrats to have the court overturn it. Completing legislative repeal denies the narrative of liberal activist judges imposing their social agenda on the military (or some other such line), which true or not, is politically effective.

All said, it makes plenty of sense for Obama to try to delay the court decision. It's better for him politically and as a matter of policy too (we generally expect executives to defend their prerogative when it comes to making military policy). It also gives greater flexibility to the military in transitioning, which is something that we'd generally expect the Commander-in-Chief to prefer. That may not be your preferred outcome, but it makes sense for executives to defend executive (or executive+legislative power).
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:47 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:you might note that the argument from the executive branch is that there's separation of powers issues...

I read that, and found it complete and utter bullshit. "You can't hear a case on this 'cuz me and Congress already decided to do something about it... maybe... later. So QUIT HEARING CASES, JUDICIAL BRANCH!" Reminds me of our last president and his childish 'separation of powers' ways.
Silknor wrote:Your phrasing implies that this power would still exist after the completion of the certification process from the DADT repeal bill last year. This is not true, that power would only exist in the interim period between whenever the 9th Circuit's decision becomes effective and when the DADT bill goes fully into effect (and I believe discharges have already been suspended).

Your phrasing implies that that period would be short and finite, when it in fact could be years. Not only, that, but your argument is that we should give Obama power to persecute gays and deny them rights because "It's probably going to be really quick" and "He totally promised he wouldn't use that horrible power."
...
He totally promised, you guys!

And P.S. We're totally still discharging service members.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Silknor » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:08 pm UTC

You don't get what I'm saying.

I recognize it could be a long time. It's unlikely, but yes it could take years. And I don't think Obama should have that power. Rather, I'm saying he does, and it's perfectly natural that an executive with any power will argue to preserve it, even if they don't intend to use it. I'm only arguing that him defending executive (and executive+legislative) power is what he's supposed to (or at least expected to) do, and to understand his motives you have to look at the separation of power issue and the politics involved, instead of concluding that this decision means he doesn't care about gay rights as Belial implied.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

Bassoon
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:58 pm UTC
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Bassoon » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:30 pm UTC

No, we understand perfectly what you're saying. We also understand that it's wrong.

You're saying that the president is merely keeping executive power to kick LGBT individuals out of the military for their sexual orientation to preserve executive power. We're saying that this, in itself, is an example of how Obama does not support gay rights. If he were supportive of gay rights, he would remove this executive power from play, thus preventing other executive individuals (other presidents, etc.) from having this power, which would protect the rights of LGBT individuals to serve openly in the US Military. Not protecting gay rights == not supporting gay rights. QED.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Silknor » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:51 pm UTC

Not merely no (the politics of it are also important). And I disagree with you on your premise: "If he were supportive of gay rights, he would remove this executive power from play". This is basically the argument that we should interpret the Constitution in order to promote some goal. But the Constitution need not be perfect, and we can recognize that maybe it does grant powers that shouldn't be used and we'd be better off without (personally I agree with the 9th Circuit's ruling, but I understand the Administration's reasoning here). If you don't think the Constitution actually means that Congress lacks the power to exclude homosexual soldiers (again, I do think it means it lacks that power, but the Administration doesn't), then you shouldn't pretend it does mean that in order to further a goal of equality. Otherwise, it's no better than Republicans who supported an individual mandate before deciding it was unconstitutional because Obama supported it (obviously in moral terms there's a world of difference, but the underlying pattern of reasoning is the same: I'll choose to interpret the Constitution such that it furthers my preferences even when I don't believe that's an accurate interpretation). Clearly those opposing Obama from the left here don't interpret the Constitution in that same way (or at least I hope so). But if Obama does, then he shouldn't pretend it means something else.

Yes, he could support LGBT rights here. But declining to take the path of dishonestly interpreting the Constitution (I'm not saying you can't honestly interpret it to forbid DADT type policies, but I doubt he does interpret it in that way), should not be seen as anti-LGBT rights. Rather, it should be seen as a recognition that the Constitution doesn't always suit our personal preferences, and realizing you can work to promote LGBT rights (As he has, even if not as much as many would like) without going against your good-faith interpretation of the Constitution.

There is room for subtle distinctions in politics, not everything is with us or against us. There is also room for competing goals, even when there is tension between them.

Edit: To try to make it somewhat clearly, I'll give an exaggerated example. In between the 14th and 19th Amendments, you could make an argument that the 14th Amendment denies states the ability to restrict the franchise to men, due to the Equal Protection Clause. But someone who said, no, that's not what the 14th Amendment means is not necessarily anti-Women's Suffrage. They could fully support Women's Suffrage and yet still honestly believe that the Constitution does grant states this entirely wrong ability to restrict the franchise.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:53 pm UTC

The gist of what I'm getting from Obama's actions (and this might be wrong) is that he supports gay rights, but not as much as he supports being in a good political position.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Dark567 » Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:03 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:The gist of what I'm getting from Obama's actions (and this might be wrong) is that he supports gay rights, but not as much as he supports being in a good political position.

Generally if you do anything other then that, you end up not being a politician. Most politicians get where they are because they put politics over principle.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby sourmìlk » Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:The gist of what I'm getting from Obama's actions (and this might be wrong) is that he supports gay rights, but not as much as he supports being in a good political position.

Generally if you do anything other then that, you end up not being a politician. Most politicians get where they are because they put politics over principle.

Yes, I recognize that this is the least unique trait of politicians.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby Silknor » Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:22 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:The gist of what I'm getting from Obama's actions (and this might be wrong) is that he supports gay rights, but not as much as he supports being in a good political position.


This I think is most of the story (and I think it's fairly reasonable, it wouldn't make sense for him to lose too much of his political position over one issue if it prevents progress on others, this goes for just about any issue, eg. if he prefers to repeal the PATRIOT Act but knows that he probably couldn't manage that even if he tried and just trying would hurt the Democrats in the next election, thus compromising their ability to make progress on other issues, he probably shouldn't actively push for repeal).

But it wouldn't be complete without noting that Obama is a fairly polarizing figure, and him pushing something is more likely to solidify Republican opposition to it than would be the case for most Democrats (see individual mandate, DREAM Act, cap and trade, payroll tax cuts, etc). That is to say, there's a possible tactical component to his decisions: it's plausible that it best serves the cause of gay rights for him not to become a central advocate before there already exists somewhat of a consensus on that particular issue (eg DADT repeal was much more popular than same-sex marriage).
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

LtNOWIS
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:21 pm UTC
Location: Fairfax County

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby LtNOWIS » Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:44 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:And P.S. We're totally still discharging service members.

Some of them asked for it.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby mmmcannibalism » Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:54 am UTC

Silknor wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:The gist of what I'm getting from Obama's actions (and this might be wrong) is that he supports gay rights, but not as much as he supports being in a good political position.


This I think is most of the story (and I think it's fairly reasonable, it wouldn't make sense for him to lose too much of his political position over one issue if it prevents progress on others, this goes for just about any issue, eg. if he prefers to repeal the PATRIOT Act but knows that he probably couldn't manage that even if he tried and just trying would hurt the Democrats in the next election, thus compromising their ability to make progress on other issues, he probably shouldn't actively push for repeal).

But it wouldn't be complete without noting that Obama is a fairly polarizing figure, and him pushing something is more likely to solidify Republican opposition to it than would be the case for most Democrats (see individual mandate, DREAM Act, cap and trade, payroll tax cuts, etc). That is to say, there's a possible tactical component to his decisions: it's plausible that it best serves the cause of gay rights for him not to become a central advocate before there already exists somewhat of a consensus on that particular issue (eg DADT repeal was much more popular than same-sex marriage).


Maybe its just me, but I feel that support gay marriage super actively while yelling that it is decreasing the power of government over people's lives could be worked into a killer campaign.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Obama doesn't support gay rights

Postby folkhero » Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:27 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:Maybe its just me, but I feel that support gay marriage super actively while yelling that it is decreasing the power of government over people's lives could be worked into a killer campaign.

I hope it works for Gary Johnson, but it doesn't seem to be.

Edit: Nevermind, I guess he supports civil unions, but not marriage :(

Edit Edit: Although he doesn't think the government should be in the business of denying or allowing marriage to anyone, in my opinion that's letting the perfect solution get in the way of the good solution.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests