This is not good.
No. It's worse than not good. It's miserable. I've tried to be as generous as I can to the Administration in its political struggle with a morally clear question: equality for gay couples. While the criticism was most prominently used about Afghanistan, if you want to know what dithering looks like, try to draw a straight line graph through the White House positions on same-sex couples.
And now, a week before a critical election we might just be able to win, Attorney General Eric Holder goes right into Maine and says -- directly to Maine voters -- that he and the President really don't much care, one way or the other, how the election comes out.
I'll say it again: If the right wins either or both of these elections, it will energize the worst elements of the very faction that is most harmful to the President, himself. Even if he doesn't want to help us explicitly (and it's now clear he does not), is that really the outcome he wants?
Let me offer a draft for the next White House statement about Question 1 in Maine and Referendum 71 in Washington -- or whatever the next gay marriage equality battle turns out to be: "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"
H/T to KC Johnson
9 Comments for “More Fierce Advocacy on Marriage”
posted by TS on
THAT’s what he meant to say all along. The tremendous political capital to be gained by appearing to be “above the fray” of the culture wars is just what he needs for his real agendas: universal health care and de-republicanizing foreign policy. His tacticians know that those on the far left and we in the interests can’t effectively rebel against his leadership because nobody more friendly to us than him has any hope of being elected. For every step he takes away from culture war controversy, he loses only the support of those extremists who demand to be agreed with, while gaining the trust of a much larger band of those in the middle.
posted by Jorge on
I read the article first and thought you were complaining about the administration’s brief in support of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.
I’m upset that we have, in the advice not to prosecute medical marijuana cases yet another clear moral/political stand upsetting a lot of people that’s not about gay rights. How about advising the military not to initiate discharge proceedings against gay servicemembers, huh?
Dithering is right! At least with Bush we actually managed to get some clear Yes stuff in the middle of all those Nos. Obama’s support for us is so wiggly he should replace Cosby on those old Jello commercials.
posted by jpeckjr on
Largely because of Pres Obama’s speech to HRC, I have several straight ally friends who do not understand how gay and lesbian people can be frustrated with him. Maybe the conversations about policy that I am having with them, how it is different from rhetoric, are increasing their understanding. On the other hand, they were already on our side. Perhaps that is the problem. Pres. Obama knows that gay and lesbian voters won’t go to the other party. He also knows that even if we stayed home in an election, he could win. Maybe, nationally, we really aren’t all that potent a political force. All the more reason these two votes have significance.
posted by Debrah on
“I have several straight ally friends who do not understand how gay and lesbian people can be frustrated with him.”
**************************************
I do not understand how anyone who voted for Obama CANNOT be frustrated with him.
It’s been a year now and almost everything he used as his platform has either been altered, watered down, or has gone up in smoke.
His foreign policy is essentially a copy of GWB’s—which is fine with me since I’m vehemently pro-Israel.
Obama seems like a nice man and would be fun to be around.
Eloquence and elegance conquers; however, Obama continues to rely far too much on the sizzle rather than the steak.
To give him a pass on not keeping promises to those who gave millions to his 2008 campaign and worked for his election strikes me as being very unwise.
I supported him this time around; however, he is governing like a one-termer.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
The AG’s lame statement in Maine on the ballot question are inexcusable. One of my fellow LGBT for Obama folks from last year suggested that Obama’s more vague statement to HRC was good enough and that it was up to the rest of us to do the rest. That’s bull. I don’t need to be told about what’s up to me, considering how hard I’ve been working here in D.C. on marriage equality. Of course we all have our work cut out for us. But the President has a role to play as well, and his refusal to lead on this issue–to simply come out and state his opposition to the anti-gay ballot initiatives–is inexcusable. I had to pass up an invitation to attend the hate crimes bill signing later today because I have a guest lecture to deliver at Howard University; otherwise I’d have hoped for a few seconds to tell POTUS my unhappiness at his silence on Maine and Washington State.
posted by Throbert McGee on
And now, a week before a critical election we might just be able to win, Attorney General Eric Holder goes right into Maine and says — directly to Maine voters — that he and the President really don’t much care, one way or the other, how the election comes out.
The question before voters in Maine is: Do we keep the recently enacted same-sex marriage law, or do we repeal the SSM law and return to the previous status quo, which was a form of “weak” domestic partnership? (A total elimination of DP law is not an option available to voters under the current referendum in Maine, and neither is establishment of “strong” domestic partnership — the only two choices are reversion to “weak” DP or sticking with Same-Sex Marriage.)
Since Obama has previously stated that he opposes SSM but supports domestic partnership — albeit without specifying a preference for “weak” or “strong” DP — perhaps we should be glad that he’s staying out of the Maine referendum. (Consistency with his past promises would mean favoring the repeal of SSM in Maine and a reversion to DP.)
The battle in Washington state is quite different, as it essentially asks voters to choose between “strong” DP and “weak” DP (“no DP” isn’t an option, and neither is “SSM” — the question is whether Washington’s DP laws should be limited or comprehensive in scope).
posted by Throbert McGee on
The battle in Washington state is quite different, as it essentially asks voters to choose between “strong” DP and “weak” DP
Er, I mean that they’re “quite different” if one assumes that there’s “quite a difference” between “strong Domestic Partnership law” and “Same-Sex Marriage law.”
But if you hold that there’s little practical difference between “strong DP” and “SSM,” and that the two are distinguished primarily at a symbolic level, then the contests in Maine (which currently has SSM) and Washington (which currently has “strong DP”) aren’t very different, since the Worst Case Outcome for gay couples is exactly the same in both states: a reversion to “weak DP.”
posted by jerry on
Where did people get the idea that civil rights were open to plebiscites?
posted by Jorge on
Where did people get the idea that civil rights were open to plebiscites?
It happened when the Catholic Church started a backlash against an expansive definition of rights and freedom and started promoting the legislation of morality.
That’s a gross simplification since the country is not Catholic. Take it with a grain of salt.