BO is still a pussy

[Guest glutes]

Another reason not to re-elect this pussy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR2010080502211.html

[caeron]

He's a politician. He says whatever he thinks people want to hear.

[JKane]

Another reason not to re-elect this pussy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR2010080502211.html

He says the right things on DOMA and DADT (BOTH signed into law by Clinton!) but takes weak or no action against them. Actually weakening his powers to simply strike down DADT as commander in chief the way the military was desegregated.

He also actually seems to have some Christian convictions (unlike so many on the 'religious right' for whom it's nothing more than lipservice for their base) that make him uneasy with gays.

That's fine, I'd rather have somebody still struggling his way through something, starting to see the light, and openly politically cautious about it than somebody parroting the hateful far-right anti-gay bullshit out of no conviction whatsoever and refusing to even consider the impact they're having on millions of Americans...

In the end Obama's a constitutional law professor, and I think he will do the right thing if given the chance. But the majority of the heavy lifting once Clinton signed the fucking things has to be done by either the congress or the courts. That is not Obama's fault (or Bush's, for a change... well, except for the gaping assholes he appointed to SCOTUS).

[JKane]

I also am still of the thought that the ideal solution would be Civil Unions for all. It should be the ONLY thing recognized by governments and institutions to confer the current benefits and responsibilities of marriage. But solving this and re-humanizing gays is not in "the right's" interests at all.

Putting marriage back to being a solely religious thing would have another issue, the constitution says no preference or support of one religion over another, so once gov't licenses were gone some churches would be absolutely fine with gay marriage and there wouldn't be any reason (or constitutional way) to stop them. So gays can't (probably ever, under either scenario) get a Catholic marriage; if you could get absolutely every secular right currently associated with it AND an Anglican marriage, it'd be the very best of both worlds, wouldn't it?

But this change (removing 'the church' from a power over the state they shouldn't have anyway) seems less likely to happen than gay marriage rights *eventually* coming about, in similar ways to the laws against inter-racial marriage eventually dieing out--despite having been driven by the exact same kinds of hatreds. The Prop 8 decision is another great step in that direction. And if it's upheld it sure seems to me DOMA could come under similar trial.

[Guest restless]

There's something that doesn't jibe with me about his views. I keep thinking there's another side to his strategy that we're not seeing. It just seems off-kilter somehow. I can't figure it out. The only thing I can come up with is that he honestly doesn't believe in gay MARRIAGE, but he's doing everything else within his power to get us as many rights as he can. Not defending him on this issue by any means. I'm just saying, something's off about it.

[BiBottomBoy]

Obama made it pretty clear during his campaign that he was no friend of the gays or gay marriage.

He's a black christian. How many black christians do you think are gay friendly?

He is also a pussy. He was elected with a giant mandate for change and instead of using that mandate tried to make peace with the GOP, which wasn't ever going to happen.