Friday, June 12, 2009

the good, the bad, and the ugly

the good news: new york's governor called out the state senate and said "get marriage equality done" –
“If the senate adjourns without allowing enough time to address the people’s business, I will convene the legislature in extraordinary session at a date to be announced so that we can finish the people’s business,” said Paterson, who has said that he wants to sign a marriage-equality bill.
the bad news: barack obama's handling of lgbt issues is looking more and more ugly –
[The Obama Administration's federal court brief filed in defense of DOMA] reads as if it were written by one of George Bush's top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us.
i've said before, every time i question this president he surprises me: there is a reason to wait, there is a reason to be cautious. but those reasons are very quickly being overpowered by the need for speaking out strongly and following through on major campaign promises made to the lbgt community.


  1. all of a sudden i'm hearing Obama is against gay that correct? i thought he was in favor of not passing Prop 8 in California? which confused everyone as to why it passed. i'm confused.

  2. Hey, Tony & Jeff.

    Been quiet for a while (but fun to catch up on your respective posts).

    Do either of you really think Obama is going to take this question on? Besides your own issues, Tony, why would he do this? After 100 odd days, here's what I really like/respect about Obama:

    He's way smarter than Bush or Clinton.

    By that, he sidesteps the quagmires. He's got a full plate, so he hits the issue where the impact can be made most. Bailout the autos, buy the banks, shut down Gitmo, get tough on Afghanistan. In most ways, these are not either/or choices, but compelling events that require some kind of follow-up action. "Must-do's", as it were. Lots o' gnashing, but no real other choice or option, so opposition is just left just whining over tactics.
    This issue? No clear answer, really. Plenty of challenge on either side, and no real compelling event to force a "must do". Sorry, Tony. But Obama's original platform is against GM, although he's definitely "pro-union". But this is a lose-lose issue, and I don't see this "smart guy" taking this one on at the federal level - the states will need to duke this out for a while. good luck in your quest!


  3. bri! welcome back.

    on which of "my issues" do you think there's no clear answer? DOMA, or DADT? (i'm perfectly clear on his position on marriage equality.)

    sorry brian, obama's original campaign platform was to repeal DADT and DOMA. backing away from both is one thing (and may be somewhat understandable under certain circumstances.) coming out in complete defense of DOMA is quite another.

    i agree in regards to obama, as i tried to point out in the post, and i am often reminded that there is more going on that it appears. i think obama's skill of looking at the long game, instead of reacting on impulse (i.e. mccain w/georgia or suspending his campaign to deal with the economic crisis, or mccain right now in regard to iran) is the most impressive.

    that may be what's happening here too, i don't know. but it's a reversal from what was clearly a position during the campaign.

  4. on marriage equality tho, bri, i think you're absolutely right. this is a long game situation. i think obama sees that there is more going on at the state level. (and even federal, with the olsen/boies suit.) the more it boils up, though, (ten states? fifteen?) the more pressure there will be for him to stake out a clearer, stronger position. but then, the easier it will be too.

    personally, i don't mind him staying out of this fight. for now.

  5. brian - did you see the story in the WI State Journal on Mamah's gravestone near Taliesin? email me if you didn't. sorry, guys, i veered off the subject.

    sad that in one state a couple may be deemed "equal" and in an adjoining state they may be considered "unequal". it's bullshit is what it is.

  6. jeff, you might not be surprised to hear i'm in total agreement about the state by state issue. interestingly enough, mitt romney made the same case not too long ago...

    "You really can't have different marriage provisions in different states and then expect people to be able to move around the nation and have different rights in different states. Marriage is a matter of national consequence. It's a -- it's a status. It's not an activity. And as a result, there should be a national standard."

    ...romney is obviously against gay marriage, but his argument could easily be applied to a pro-marriage equality stand.


Inappropriate comments, including spam and advertising, will be removed.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.