The Weaseling Continues...

From the New Yorker, here's Obama:

Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all fifty states

Now, this is an argument he has never made before. As Toobin notes, his administration, never, in all the cases it argued before the courts made that argument. In fact Obama was opposed to gay marriage until a few months before his re-election, when suddenly he evolved. Note that evolution is never sudden.

His evolved position? Same as Cheney's from years ago. Wanted to leave it to the states.

This was predictable. As gay marriage has become not-illegal in a majority of the states, and is crumbling elsewhere, Obama has an eye on his legacy. He wants to go down as the one who established equality for gays. History unfortunately will judge him to be so, despite being opposed to it for most of his political career, riding the coattails of many a nameless activist who fought for and won the battles in court, and stepping in to take the credit.

Oh, you want evidence? Look up weasel on this blog.

A lawsuit I'd been waiting for

After scores of lawsuits and legislation claiming persecution because gays were being allowed to marry, businesses were penalized for not honoring public accommodation, some denied their right to selectively remember that they should discriminate against contraception coverage, watching Prop 8 pass, become law, get challenged and finally dismissed by the SCOTUS, it was time.


It was time for a religious institution to claim persecution because of a law pertaining to same-sex marriage. Only this time, it was a church suing the state of North Carolina for violating their religious freedom of not being able marry homosexuals.

Religion clause has the links.

When will Obama evolve and develop a spine?

This is Kevin Rudd.  I have no idea how much of a good guy he is, but at least he is not a weasel when it comes to defending a moral stance.  Can you imagine Obama ever taking down a religious wingnut like Rudd did?

The Good Christians

Each time we near a landmark decision, vote, review of some statute on whether same-sex equality should be legislated as The Right Thing, we run into bigoted windbags vowing to fight it tooth and nail as being in violation of religious liberties.

This time Donohue and other assorted wingnuts are vowing to defy the upcoming SCOTUS rulings should it undo status quo. Yes, shades of Wallace in 1960s Alabama.

Luckily we live in the 21st century—barely—so any defiance of the law would be as effective as the Arizona Secretary of State, Ken Bennett, insisting on a black man's Obama's elusive ability to prove that he was not born in Kenya, but not Romney's because white.

To be fair, I need to at least predict what I expect the SCOTUS to do. On the Prop 8 case, the likely scenario would be for the wise ones to cleverly reject Prop 8. It'd be hypocritical of Kennedy to now say that equality was only for Romer, but it'd be a death knell for him, and specially Roberts to strike down Prop 8 and open the floodgates for gay rights in all states. So we can be sure that it will not be
struck down on anything that broad. What is likely to happen is Prop 8 struck down on some narrow technicality of California's constitution, such as the defendants not having any legal standing, or that you cannot take away a right that gays had been already granted. Or some such fecal legalese of bovine origins. On DOMA, Section 3 will be struck down as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Again, nothing radical, since it has been struck down on those grounds by eight federal courts already, and it only relates to marriage at the federal level. In other words, DOMA being partially struck down would be slightly more impactful than the DADT repeal.

So back to the Christianists. Assuming that my predictions hold (and they always do, don't they?), we can expect conservatives to be claiming a rape of their religious liberties, after all, they are experts on what constitutes rape. In this case, disallowing the rape of lesbians and gays is a rape of their religious liberties because real Constitution, Bible.

Then there will be conservatives claiming that not all conservatives should be tarred with the same feathers, because real Jesus.

There will be the liberal Christianists who would be offering a tepid, semi-flaccid apology of Christian love and how real Christianity would be all-loving, and how everyone should be gay-married Et cetera.

There will be the real liberals gay marrying right in front of the Westboro Baptist Church.  

But here's where the Good Christians fall short. If they want to convince someone that they are for equality, that their version of Jesus would approve of it, why aren't they claiming that their religious liberty is being trampled by DOMA, or Prop 8? Where are the lawsuits alleging religious discrimination by these Christians?

That's when you know what Good Christians stand for. Self interests. All they care is that Christianity not be maligned. If they have to sacrifice some Bad Christians, so be it.  But stand up for what is right?  Nah, that's the job of the non-existent deity.

Historic!

Maryland's Question 6 will pass by a margin of about 51.5% to 48.5%
Maine Question 1 will pass by a margin of about 54% to 46%
Washington Referendum 74 will pass 52% to 48%
Minnesota Amendment 1 attempt to ban gay marriage constitutionally is tied at 49-49, but trailing ever so narrowly. [updated: 11/7/2012] The attempt to ban failed 50 something to 49 something.

This is fucking GREAT compared to 2008 when Prop 8 failed passed in California.

Bigotry is beginning to die on this issue, and no longer can bigots claim "not at the ballot."

So I like a pastor?

Obama is still a fucking weasel!

OK, it is 2012, about six years from when I predicted the inexorable move towards winning due rights for the LGBT community would start.

But as is right, some cannot wait. Or maybe they are working so that we can get over the hump in 2018. David Boies and Ted Olsen are about to argue in the SCOTUS that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, where, barring the discovery of a conscience in Justice Kennedy, it is going to be rejected.

But what does the alleged champion of gay rights, i.e., Barack Obama say on this matter?

Shit.

Nada.

Nothing.

"We are not a party to this litigation and would decline further comment.”

Yup, the weasel is still weaseling.

Whoa there FOX "News", easy on the tolerance!

Well, is FOX "News" softening, or is this a ruse?

Both. Shep Smith is likely gay, so we can see why he's going against the grain. Megyn Kelly someday wants to be seen as credible and different, so it is a ruse, and Judge Napolitano (is he a judge still?) is just trying to get on the politically correct libertarian bandwagon.

But the main reason this is happening is because the younger generation is put off by bigoted demagogues telling them that their friends are to be demonized.

And they form the coveted Demo crowd 18-49, with bigots rapidly exiting the top end.

This (fight for continuing bigotry against gays) will fall, just like every bigoted stance through the ages. When it does, I hope we never forget those who fought to preserve bigotry, those who supported them, and not forgive anyone on some lame principle of letting bygones be bygones.

Not until they make amends.

Self loathing gays

The gay wing of the homophobic party known as the GOP announced their endorsement for Romney. Clearly, they prefer the openly-hostile-to-their-cause Mitt, rather than the weasel Obama.

“President Obama and his friends on the left want this election to be about divisive social issues, because the President’s record on jobs and the economy is indefensible,” continued LaSalvia. “At this critical juncture, we need a President with the experience and expertise to turn this economy around. Someone who knows how the free markets work – former Governor Mitt Romney is that candidate.”

So you see, free markets are more important than fighting for gay rights. Well, get ready to be second class citizens.

Officially.

Weasel words

“At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

Thus spake Obama, supposedly in favor of gay marriage.

Just read that.  Personally is the operative word.  As in "I personally have no issues if gay people want to marry, but for crying out loud, do not expect me to spend any political capital on it"

Fucking weasel!

So for the four years that Obama has evolved, he has gone from not supporting gay marriage to mouthing his support for it.  But that's about it.

This should be disappointing to even the most ardent of his supporters, but the Overton window has shifted so far to the right, that it seems like a major shift on his part.

So what's he going to do?

Well, nothing.  He is going to leave it to the states after stressing that it was only his personal opinion.

Had slavery been left to the states, would he be President today?

North Carolina is filled with idiots!

I had to read this report twice, and then some. On different days. At different times. Drunk. Sober.

Just to be sure that I was reading it correctly.

Lack of voter understanding about how far reaching the amendment is continues to be the biggest obstacle for those hoping to defeat it.

OK, that figures. South Carolina is, after all, just too close.

So what's the misunderstanding all about?  Gay people want to get married like straight people, and do you think they should be allowed.

55% of voters in the state support some form of legal recognition for gay couples in the form of either marriage or civil unions to only 41% completely opposed

Great! The LGBT community would be pleased to hea.. wait, WHAT?

But at the same time 55% of voters plan to support the amendment that would prohibit any legal recognition for same sex couples while only 41% are opposed.

WTF?

And with voters who admit they don't actually know what the amendment does, 26% of the electorate, it leads by a 64-28 margin.

Aw, fuck it, that is just really idiotic.

Moving right is not just a fear

As if any more evidence was needed whether the Overton window has moved frighteningly to the right, the Dems announced that they will not be doing anything to rattle the strongly homophobic black voting bloc.

In the past month, almost half of all Democratic senators, several of Obama's national campaign co-chairs, the House Minority Leader and the chairman of the Democratic convention, among others, have said they support adding marriage equality to the platform.

This is particularly odd, because it is not as if the Dems have to show a spine here; a majority of Americans already favor such equality.  So when you look at almost half of... you have to wonder if the Dems in Congress are not more extreme than the people they represent. We already know that such was the case with the Republicans, because 97% of them oppose the scientific theories of man-made global warming, far more than their constituents!

So what has happened here?  Nothing, other than the Overton window has moved so far right that Ronald Reagan can now be legitimately considered a liberal by these standards.

And Obama? He is still as slimy, refusing to take a position on gay marriage. Well, I should say refusing to take a new position on gay marriage, since he has come out against it in the past. But he needs the voting bloc and their money. At this rate, I would not be surprised if gay marriage becomes a reality under a Republican administration and the party of bigotry gets the credit for being the party for equality.

Fat bastard's weaseling

New Jersey's Democrat lawmakers want to do something right. Grant civil rights to homosexuals currently available only to heterosexuals. Yes, I am talking about gay marriage.

Sounds reasonable, heck, New York legalized gay marriage recently as well.

So what does Fat Bastard do?  He vows to veto it.  His rationale?  It is a social issue, and the legislature should instead concentrate on creating jobs. Never mind the sleight of hand that changes a civil rights issue into a social issue, here is a Republican governor tacitly admitting that the government can create jobs!

Back to the bigotry of denying homosexuals rights. Why would a seemingly moderate Republican vow to veto this? The answer is obvious, he plans to seek the nomination in the 2016, and as far batshit the GOP has gone with the tea baggers, he is positively spooked by how wingnutty you really have to be to gain the favor of the fundagelical hypocrites. But the country is leaning in favor of gay marriage as a whole, so he does not want to alienate the independent and moderate vote either, given that the slight incline could be a steep hill in another four years.

Is not gay marriage really an issue of gender?

Consider:

Laws which attempt to define/redefine marriage, or forbid homosexuals from getting married, don't, in fact, forbid homosexuals from getting married.

Even under those laws, homosexuals could get married, so long as they are of different genders. Similarly, heterosexuals couldn't get married if they were of the same gender.

Thus, it is not correct to say that it is discrimination against homosexuals. It's discrimination based upon gender.

A man can get married to a women, but not a woman. A woman can get married to a man, but not a man.

Rather than being pedantic, I think this is significant for two reasons:

First, the constitution doesn't address homosexuality, but does address gender vis-a-vis discrimination. It seems to me that a case could be made against such marriage laws on this basis.

Second, the fact that these laws turn on the basis of gender, rather than actual sexuality, reveals that it'd be impossible to enforce a law that discriminated based upon sexuality.

The second is tricky, admittedly. Certainly you can't prove the status of any one's sexuality, if only because sexuality is not defined in an entirely concrete matter. How are pansexuals or bisexuals to be treated? What about such cases where individuals engage in sexual acts among members of their own gender, but do not identify themselves as homosexuals? It's not a subject that, at this time, permits itself for legal enforcement.

However, there is one clear way that you can prove some one's sexuality: They admit it. Thus to exploit the grey area in discriminating against sexuality, you'd have to deny it, or at least play coy. This may be an issue of principle for some people, rightly believing that they shouldn't have to hide their sexuality in order to avoid discrimination.

Nevertheless, I think it's food for thought.

Cock-sucking can be proved!

Thank you Cuomo and New York

Somewhere in the White House is a weasel cowering in the corner, about to try and steal the limelight.

Kudos to Republican Roy McDonald who voted for equality as he pronounced

You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing. You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, fuck it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing.
I'm tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I'm trying to do the right thing, and that's where I'm going with this.

Obama the Opportunistic Weasel!

Marriage equality. It is the next civil right to be won in America. It will be won, and we will start an inexorable march toward equality without regard to sexual orientation. For far too long, homosexuals have been forced to live like second-class citizens, much like blacks were, and in some places, still are, but it will begin to end.

So what exactly are these homosexuals fighting for, when they want the right to marriage? Well, nothing more than what is offered to heterosexuals: the 1138 or so rights that are conferred automatically by the federal government.

When?

At one point I was optimistic it'd happen within my lifetime, but that changed after I saw a supposedly liberal California actually vote to deny homosexuals that. By a simple majority. In a state that requires a two-thirds majority to raise taxes or fees! The disappointing part of that was the way the blacks voted. Overwhelmingly against granting an oppressed minority the same rights as heterosexuals. That was unfathomable to me. Firstly, that we we were actually voting to deny or grant someone rights, and secondly, that a long oppressed minority who had gone through the trials and tribulations of their own were voting to deny that to
someone else!

And Obama? His position was as follows:

I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think Prop 8 is unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.

Weasel!

If you favor liberty for all, but are opposed to Prop 8, that is like being in favor of equality for blacks but opposing the Civil Rights Act.

Then he became President. Had that two-faced Warren deliver the invocation. Yes, that homophobe.

So when? Not in my lifetime, I said, at that point.

Months passed, there were rumblings from the gay community about DOMA and DADT. Obama's team was unmoved, they had more pressing matters to even make a statement.

But something happened over that time. The fundagelicals were so focused on directing their bigotry against Obama, his birth certificate, his skin color, the ACA, the continuing economic malaise, Muslims, Alaska Palin, Minnesota Palin, Beck, guns, and already low taxes, that they forgot to hate the gays.

The polls changed, and a significant majority of the population voiced support for repealing DADT. And Obama jumped on the opportunity. Fresh from a stinging defeat at the polling booth, he "boldly" put the DADT repeal to a vote. Opportunistic politicians followed suit. DADT was repealed.

Wow! Congress and Obama did what only 80% of the people wanted. Gutsy!

OK, now when will marriage equality become real? I started thinking 2012. Obama's got this, and DOMA is to be history soon. Hey, he issued an edict stating that his DOJ will not be defending DOMA anymore. Even announced that his views are "evolving".

So where's the public statement that recanted his Prop 8 weaseldom? Rumors started circulating that he'll do so shortly. Perhaps this week.

Nope, didn't happen this week. At a LGBT rally in New York, where they are trying to pass a marriage equality bill, when confronted directly on the specific issue of marriage equality, the weasel offered:

And I believed that discrimination because of somebody’s sexual orientation or gender identity ran counter to who we are as a people. It’s a violation of the basic tenets on which this nation was founded. I believe that gay couples deserve the same human rights as every other couple in this country.

OK, what about marriage, you weasel?

Right now, I understand, there is a little debate going on here in New York, under the leadership of Governor Cuomo, with the support of Democrats and Republicans, New York is doing exactly what democracies are supposed to do. There is debate and deliberation about what it means here in New York to treat people fairly in the eyes of the law. That is the power of our democratic system. It is not always pretty there are setbacks there are frustrations. But in grappling with tough and at time emotional issues in the legislatures and the courts and the ballot box and, yes, around the dinner table and the office hallways -- sometimes even in the Oval Office -- slowly but surely we find a way forward. That is how we will achieve change that is lasting. Change that just a few years ago would have seemed impossible.

Spineless weasel!

With your help, if you keep up the fight, if you will devote your time and your energies to this campaign one more time, I promise you we will write another chapter in that story. We are going to lead a new generation to a brighter future, and I will be standing there right there with you.

Opportunistic weasel!  They'll work, fight, suffer, and he'll take the credit.

The polls on this are only slightly in favor: 53% approve. Not enough for the weasel to stake any political capital on it.

So when? I am guessing 2018 at the latest. The bigotry shall be made illegal. It may take a couple more generations after that to get to the point where homosexuals enjoy the same acceptance as blacks do today. If it doesn't, remember that Obama had it in his sights to dare to effect the change and he refrained.

When the discrimination ends, note that the real heroes would have been members of the LGBT community, who suffered, fought, and ended it.

Not Obama. He was just there for the cake. Yes, I get it, "He is better than Bush or even Clinton!" He is still a weasel who did little to help the LGBT community except and only when someone else made it politically favorable.

The DADT repeal will go down as one of his accomplishments, and I have credited him with that in the past. I now see that it was misplaced. The DADT repeal simply happened on his watch, he had little to do with it.

Gay marriage opponents, please reflect on this

1. If you really, really want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, should you not be clamoring for a proposition that bans divorce, since divorce is the leading cause of death of all marriages?

2. If you are married, then please describe in gruesome detail how your marriage absolutely lost all meaning when Jacqueline and Melissa got married. Who, you ask? Well, if you do not even know them, then was your marriage really affected? OK, to make it easier, how did your marriage lose all its meaning when Ellen Degeneres and Portia di Rossi tied the knot?

3. Please describe the basis of a traditional marriage. What, or who defines what a marriage constitutes? If you say it is tradition, explain why a tradition, specifically this one, needs to be unchanging since many traditions are not. It was, for example, a tradition that only men could participate in voting in an election.

4. If you feel that some religious body or belief defines marriage, can you find its position to have changed from allowing multiple wives to a single one? Can you find the tradition of divorce in the same body of belief? Do you not find any conflicts at all?

5. If the word 'marriage' is being hijacked, hasn't the word 'gay' been hijacked a lot earlier? Should we be clamoring for a ban on that usage?

Gay marriage and the discrimination

Marriage is primarily a religious concept which has been institutionalized by our government in a blatant violation of church and state.

I am married to a loving woman, but I despise the very notion of marriage since it is a religious institution. The main reason I chose to get married was for legal benefits, and because my disgust for the institution was not stronger at the time than my fear of being socially ostracized by our respective families.

The legal benefits are plentiful: taxes, estate planning, social security, disability, health-care in companies that provide such benefits, death and inheritance benefits, legal protection, etc.

Which is why not allowing these same benefits to individuals who are of the same sex, but nevertheless are as committed to each other as heterosexual ones, is discriminatory.

Plain and simple.

The people trying to prevent this simply want to force their religious viewpoints down the throats of everyone.

The proposal of civil unions, which is often offered as a compromise, either by explicit approval or by explicit denial of any opposition to the idea, by people who reject gay marriages, such as the current Presidential candidates (Obama and McCain), is only a sugar-coated example of this discrimination.

By separating civil unions from marriages, you'll legally recognize unions between homosexuals as second-class to marriage. Some rights will likely not be entailed by a civil union, or else the idea is a sham, since there will otherwise be no legal difference between a civil union and a marriage.

And what happens when heterosexuals demand that they be allowed to enter into civil unions, and not marriages?

"Gay marriage is destroying traditional marriage" is the oft-heard cry of the shrill.

How?

Traditional marriage is suffering, or in my estimation, enjoying a precipitous drop in longevity these days. Half of all marriages in the USA now end in divorce, doubled from about a generation ago.

You have to an imbecile to conclude that homosexuals are even remotely responsible for it!

So what's the solution?

Have the government out of the marriage business altogether. Instead institutionalize civil unions for everyone wanting to be in a union, and leave marriages to the religious institutions. It'll end the discrimination, and should make the religious folks happy too.

That is, if the real beef that religious folks had was keeping the religious notion of marriage intact.

Anybody has even a single rational argument against this proposal?