Is There A Constitutional Lawyer In The House?

by: Paul Rosenberg

Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 23:09


AP reports:

President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday defended his choice of a popular evangelical minister to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, rejecting criticism that it slights gays.

But Obama told reporters in Chicago that America needs to "come together," even when there's disagreement on social issues. "That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about," he said.

Obama also said he's known to be a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays and lesbians, and will remain so. [Emphasis added]

Dear President-elect Obama:

I know this is a bit awkward, you being black and me being white, but I feel compelled to point out that there's a slight problem with your logic here.  You see, the whole "fierce advocate for equality" thing doesn't really square with being opposed to gay marriage.  Because you can't really be for equality while treating people differently.  It's a non-sequiter.  Being for equality means treating people the same.  It means letting them have exactly the same opportunities, rights, privileges, experiences, everything.

And this is where the awkward part comes in, you see.  Because the whole "being for equality" but treating people differently thing? That goes goes directly back to a case known as Plessy v. Ferguson.  And that was all about black people, and the exact same "separate but equal" sort of logic you're been talking about.

Now you might not know about this, being as you're not the descendent of slaves, but perhaps your wife can fill you in a bit.  Better yet, by some sort of amazing coincidence, there happens to be a constitutional lawyer living right in your home town of Chicago who is also named "Barack Obama", and perhaps he could explain it to you.

You see, this whole of idea of "separate, but equal"?  It really doesn't work.  They tried it already.  Tried it reaaaaally hard.  And, like I said, didn't work.

But, don't trust me on it.  Go talk to that other Barack Obama fellah.  He should be able to tell you all about it.

Really.  He should.
Paul Rosenberg :: Is There A Constitutional Lawyer In The House?

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Is There A Constitutional Lawyer In The House? | 83 comments
I guess this is the new litmus test, huh? (4.00 / 3)
Don't follow the party line 100% and you're out!  99% is not good enough!

Damn, when did we become bizarro world right wing republicans...

Meanwhile, in case you haven't noticed, and judging by the front page diaries you haven't.... Bush is about to totally nuke the midwest economically, and the fallout will last for generations...

But, forget about that, we got to focus on some guy's opening prayer... even thought that same opening prayer is managing to piss off every right winger in the land, we have to divide and conquer... ourselves!

Listen, the Warren thing sucks and people have a legitimate beef about it... I hate it, too... but the right wingers I'm hearing from, seem to hate it even more, so let's look at the whole picture before we suddenly abandon everything over a failed litmus test...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

There is no " whole picture" ..that's what you can't see. (4.00 / 1)
Because there is NO gay on the stage  -is there??

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.
[ Parent ]
Ummm.... you did notice who was doing the benediction... (0.00 / 0)
Yes?

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
So, He's Bringing Us All Together By Pissing Everyone Off? (4.00 / 9)
Listen, the Warren thing sucks and people have a legitimate beef about it... I hate it, too... but the right wingers I'm hearing from, seem to hate it even more, so let's look at the whole picture before we suddenly abandon everything over a failed litmus test...

Good to know!

The logic just keeps on coming!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
It worked for Bush (0.00 / 0)
to some extent.

Yes, that was snark.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
99% (4.00 / 2)
99% is not good enough!

It depends what the 1% is.  However, no one is talking about Obama being "out" of anything.  

[ Parent ]
Do you have links... (0.00 / 0)
...to angry right-wingers?  I'm genuinely asking.
[ Parent ]
I agree and disagree with what you wrote. (4.00 / 6)
Warren is offensive and not just because he hates gays.  He also hates women, and he's a religious zealot opposed to seperation of church and state.  I resent being prayed at by anyone, let alone this scum bucket.

Depending on one's value system, I agree that there are many things out there that are a bigger deal in the bigger scheme than Warren. If you measure the injustice or the size of a catastrophe simply on the raw numbers of people involved, gay issues do not rise to the top of the list.  This is further demonstrated by Warren's affront to the left being focused almost entirely on his gay bashing as opposed to his hatred for roughly 50% of the populuation and willingness to imprison them for abortions.  To the gay communities credit, however, they are vocal enough to fight for and win the number one spot.  I admire their tenacity, and their issue is just.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Missing the point... (4.00 / 10)
When it comes to gay rights, Barack Obama is the best president we've ever had (not that we actually have him yet).

The point Paul Rosenberg is making, is that Barack Obama has no credibility when he calls himself a fierce advocate. Any "fierce advocate" would stand for full equality for the lgbt community. Most Democrats are decent advocates, but for any of them to call themselves fierce is misleading at best.

[ Parent ]
I look forward to his fierce advocacy (4.00 / 6)
for repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell and establishing civil unions at the federal level.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
Great post! (4.00 / 6)
But...but...Obama's pragmatic, and he must show that he's not beholden to any "special interests" groups on the left. He's sooooo post-partisan.

The fact of the matter is this: Obama's a very cautious, neoliberal politician, and his tip-toeing around gay rights is cowardly and shameful...yet fully expected. He tries to have it both ways on this like he does with the race issue. Much like on race, he panders to those who aren't comfortable with gay people and simultaneously giving winks and signals to a key minority constituency as if he's on their side without explicitly saying so. The left should've been prepared for this because during the primaries Obama made it perfectly clear that his goal was to impress those on the opposition, proving to them that he's not some staunch liberal who will usher in new politics, but a black Clintonite who can out-Clinton the Clintons.

I wish I could feel some form of disappointment, but I can't because I expected moves like this from him all along.  

Could you expand? (0.00 / 0)
I agree with most of your post, but in what way did Obama pander on the issue of race?

Just curious for your perspective.

[ Parent ]
It is my impression... (4.00 / 2)
And someone please prove to me that I'm wrong here, but a lot of black people get really, really annoyed when gay rights are equated with racial civil rights. And seeing how much homophobia there is in the black community (again prove me wrong, please), I'm sure Team Obama sees this as a win-win situation. Teh Gays, obviously, are missing the point.

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
Oh Not At All They Get The Point EXACTLY! (4.00 / 6)
And yes.  Obama seems to be doing everything possible to drive wedges into his base.

He's a political genius!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Where is that all that black homophibia..exactly ?? (4.00 / 6)
We have few blacks in Arizona and in 2006 the gay marriage ban was defeated here.  It was outside money provided by bigots like Warren and Focus on the Family that came into the state, backed our few evangelicals with millions and they went after the Catholics in the Hispanic community -they won.

Obama just gave every homophobe and hate crime in America -new life.

And we were stupid enough to believe a new day had dawned.  
Take this shoe- and shove it.

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

[ Parent ]
Some folks tend to forget that there are gays in the black community as well. (4.00 / 6)
Some people tend to forget that there are blacks who advocate for gay rights and challenge homophobia in our inner circles all the time. Yes, there's homophobia in certain sections of black communities, but the way some people frame it, you'd think there's some underground, Nazi-like movement developing among blacks to oppress gays and lesbians. I find it quite insulting, and I'm a gay black man. I have no problem challenging homophobia, but it gets tiresome when I see people using the always-reliable scapegoat to blame America for all its failures: blacks.  
[ Parent ]
This Is Why I Found This Particularly Pernicious On Obama's Part (4.00 / 5)
This had just erupted again with Proposition 8, and here comes Obama, rubbing salt in that wound.

We're always being told how politically smart he is. And I believe it.  So what does this tell you about what he's up to?

Certainly not empowering those who empowered him.  That's for damn sure.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Exactly right. (4.00 / 4)
I think this done nothing but created more friction among gays and blacks. Gays and blacks overwhelmingly supported Obama, but as usual, he often has to show the press corp or those on the opposition that he's not beholden to them, so he does certain things such as holding black people collectively as having the worst pathologies compared to other groups, chastising black fathers to take more "personal responsibility" in a Cosbyite/Reaganite manner; continuing to cozy up with religious figures who hold disgusting views towards gays, his ambiguous views on gay rights (i.e., he doesn't support gay marriage, but opposed Prop. 8) all just to prove that he's a "pragmatic" figure that can take bold steps with necessary. By being so ambiguous this gives Obama wiggle room to move wherever he wants, like he did with FISA, where he shortly after smirked at his critics by saying he was never "to the left" as many made him out to be, so he didn't see anything wrong.

This is being celebrated by many that he's showing the left that he has a backbone and can stand up to them. It's a rite of passage in Democratic Party's politics.  

[ Parent ]
Except... I Don't Buy The Excuses (4.00 / 8)
It's a rite of passage in Democratic Party's politics.

Since when?  Since Bill Clinton?  Bill Clinton had Sister SoulJah, and it was over.  But Obama just keeps doing this over and over and over again.  And, as noted his doesn't just slam one group, he sets them against each other.

This is not something he's being forced to do.  This is something that he wants to do.

I'm starting to think he's still pissed that he lost to Bobby Rush--a race he should have never been in in the first place.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I'm missing something... (0.00 / 0)
what does this have to do with Bobby Rush?
[ Parent ]
Obama primaried him (4.00 / 2)
I think in 2000, maybe in 2002.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Yeah, I know (0.00 / 0)
I just don't get the connection between being pissed about losing to Rush and setting groups against each other.
[ Parent ]
don't limit this to just presidents! (0.00 / 0)
Why limit Preston's point to just presidents? Democrats do not have too much material in that area since 1964.  But even Democrats in Congress have bent over backwards to exist right at the center and not disrupt support for conservative ideas. How many Democrats voted against the war? And exactly what makes Pelosi a radical? Hint: nothing.  
[ Parent ]
Well you're making the false assumption that the (4.00 / 1)
vocal minority--you and others "outraged" by this decision--make up the majority of those who empowered, as you put it, Obama's victory.

Since you seem to have no issue making blind assumptions, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the majority (silent) hold the right view.  Yet again.

[ Parent ]
"An Injury To One Is An Injury To All" (4.00 / 7)
Ever heard of it?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Ugh. I'm getting a little broken record-y on this subject, but so are those (4.00 / 2)
representing your viewpoint. In fact, you must include women and the pro-choice majority among those marginalized by a Rick Warren pick. Warren's homophobia is very much connected to a constrictive view of gender roles. And, women being in the slight majority, your crass calculus is just wrong here.  
[ Parent ]
Of COURSE There Is Black Homophobia (4.00 / 6)
and it's been a real problem for the black community.  For example, black homophobia, and the denial of black homosexuality provided one of the main entry points for AIDS into the black community.  Had the black community been less homophobic, they could have much more effectively combatted the spread of AIDS.

There is nothing at all unusual in this.  Subordinated groups always pay a higher price for aping the prejudices of dominant groups.  "Well, at least we're better than X and we can look down on them," the thinking goes.  And they always get screwed as a result. (See, for example, Bob Dylan's incredible early song, "Only a Pawn In Their Game.")

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I honestly doubt that this calculation was to please Evangelical blacks. (4.00 / 6)
If Obama wanted to please black Christians and pander to the black church, all he had to do was bring out the usual TBN black pastor who condemns homosexuality as an abomination to do the invocation. Obama rarely does anything to please black voters because he feels that whatever he say or do will be rationalized and excused as a necessity -- "He has to do this to win;" "He has to play the game" -- by the majority of black supporters. He'll get away scot-free with no backlash from them; he rightly predicated that black people would be too star-struck over the whole idea of a black presidency to ever question his actions or judgments. So, no, this wasn't done to please certain black Christians who hold rancor towards gays. (Besides, he done this dirty deed already in the primaries with self-haters like Donnie McClurkin.)

No, this was done to please the D.C. press corp that he can "bring people together" -- to use one of his famous lines -- those he disagree with to build a common cause. This would make sense if Warren was somewhat ambivalent towards gay rights. (I guess because Warren is a little more sensible on poverty and the environment compared to the usual far-right pastors that makes him different.) However, Warren is like Huckabee, a type of social conservative who smiles in your face with a warm, welcoming presence, while holding views that aren't different than a Robinson or a Hagee. Like Max Blumenthal wrote in an article last month, it's not what he says that people find appealing, it's how he says it. He's just a new repackaging of far-right Evangelicals for the mainstream press to accept as a different brand.

[ Parent ]
i will correct you (4.00 / 2)
that is huge generality ... what are you basing it upon?

Rev. Lowery is one who obviously equates homosexuality as a civil rights issue.

This outrage seems a little bizarre to me: Didn't Billy Graham do the invocation for Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Billy Graham was a social conservative who opposed most of the core democratic values like being pro-choice and I'm sure he would have opposed gay marriage had it been around.

Did anyone say that Bill Clinton betrayed the feminists and gays that supported him?

[ Parent ]
A Crucial Difference (4.00 / 6)
I was no fan of Billy Graham.  But he was much more focused on the old-fashioned core evangelical mission of "saving souls" as opposed to pushing a political agenda.  That's a big number one difference.

Number two was that Graham had already established himself as minister to Presidents.  So by including him, they weren't breaking any new ground.

If Obama had a made a choice that conformed to either of these standards, he wouldn't have caught more than a smattering of criticism, at most.

The fact that this even has to be explained to you....



"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
right (4.00 / 1)
so if Bush I or W. had used Warren you would have had no problem with Obama using him? I find that hard to believe.

I was raised listening to Billy Graham and I remember him being political and very literal of the word of god. My evangelical sister pointed out that although Warren came out in favor of Prop 8 he did not ask his members to donate time or money to the cause, nor did he bankroll or spearhead the operation. She lives in California and said he wasn't super vocal on the issue. So yes he cut a youtube message to his church but he did not garner a ton of mainstream attention for his support in her opinion.

Warren dedicates a lot of his energy to poverty and global warming, so he is not only a political hack like a Jerry Falwell. He also tithes 90% of his income, which is more than a lot of pastors can say. Look, I don't like the man and I am annoyed I have to defend him, but I am defending him because people like my sister, who volunteers every week at a juvenile hall, like Warren.

You don't need to be condescending, Paul. I have never even paid to who gave prayers at inaugurations and I didn't hear one person mention it until Obama picked Warren. Who could have guessed this was such a pressing concern of the progressives, moreso than any Cabinet pick.

[ Parent ]
If Bush I AND Clinton Had Both Used Him (4.00 / 1)
then I would have had a problem.  But I would have been very much the exception. As I wrote in my comment, "he wouldn't have caught more than a smattering of criticism, at most."

That smattering would have come from me, among others, but most folks would have shrugged it off.

You really are just being willfully obtuse at this point.

Or, rather, totally in the tank for Obama: He can do no wrong.

Good to know!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
Or, rather, totally in the tank for Obama: He can do no wrong.

someone is going to have to be 100% opposite of your views. Such is life.

[ Parent ]
wow (0.00 / 0)
you really are a douchebag ...

You can't respond to the content of people's post without name calling and condescension. I do support Obama but you are just as entrenched in your position as a contrarian, which doesn't really make you ideologically superior to me.

I actually wrote a lot of posts here at first about how pissed I was Obama chose Warren. I still don't like it, but I have put it into its proper level of importance to my life and my values, and I determined for myself that it was relatively small. In other words, I cooled down and started thinking a little more rationally. Plus, seeing the sheer stupidity and vacuousness of thought on a lot of the blogs helped me snap out of the fervor.

Obama also invited Itzach Perlman who cut a No on 8 ad, Rev. Lowery, and yes, a gay band. So he chose one person who supported Prop 8 and two people and a band who opposed it. He did not say at a press conference that he agree with Warrren on any issue and in the past has only praised his positions on AIDS, poverty, and global warming.  

[ Parent ]
You've GOT To Be Kidding! (0.00 / 0)
Comparing Itzach Perlman to Rick Warren.

You really don't give any thought at all to very different meanings that attach to different people and different roles.

It's all, quite literally, a "tab A" in "slot B" affair for you.

Just to be clear, what's going in this discussion at this point is that you are telling me why people shouldn't be upset: because you refuse to see any difference between a commonplace (priemer performing artists, who happen to have taken political stands) and a radical departure (a key role for a highly divisive culture warrior).

I'm sorry, but arguments of the form, "I don't see a problem, so why are they upset?" are not logically valid.  They are a species of the non-sequiter fallacy.  The fact that you don't see a problem doesn't say a damn thing about whether other people are right or wrong to be upset.

Others can draw their own conclusions, but from where I stand, you are so defensive, you can't even keep track of what the argument is.

That's not an accident, IMHO.  That's exactly what's intended.  They can't win an argument that a bigot like Warren should receive a position of honor and respect.  What they can do, however, is utterly confuse people, so they doin't know what the argument is all about.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Be aware that there is plenty of racisim in the queer community, too (4.00 / 6)
And there is evidence that homophobia in the black community has more to do with the fact that black people are disproportionately religious, and when religious, are disproportionately evangelical than it has to do with any magical racial cultural nexus.  

And yes, any comparison can be taken too far.  It's stupid to say things like 'gay is the new black.'  Each struggle is different, and comes from different circumstances and with different history.  The mere fact that being LGBT is not (at least wholly) an inherited trait creates a massive difference in the two experiences.  

Despite all of this, however, the essential logic and struggle is the same (equality for all), the struggle isn't necessarily the same.  

In the end, the oppression olympics bullshit is stupid, and only serves to divide us from each other.  If all the people that the rich straight white cisgendered rich white males want to stomp on stood up together, there would be no stopping us.  It's only by forcing these cleavages that they can win.  And that's why giving Warren a megaphone is toxic.  Obama has chosen to divide his base, rather than unify it.  

[ Parent ]
Bigotry is not religion. (4.00 / 3)
Religion is often used as a mask for bigotry, but it's just that -- a mask.

People used to claim that owning slaves was a deeply held religious belief, and therefore beyond reproach. Would you have taken their word for that?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Of course not (0.00 / 0)
But institutions are important, and most organized religions tend to oppose gay marriage specifically, and gay rights in general.  If we're going to understand things like the Prop 8 vote, we shoudl probably look more deeply than 'teh blacks voted for it!!!', when it's probably more indicative to say that 'regular church goers, of all races, tended to oppose it'.  
[ Parent ]
nothing so new (4.00 / 1)
Someone so great as Frederick Douglass famously declined to support vigorously women's rights. (While we may look back and find this decision wrong, it is hard not to understand Douglass' viewpoint).  Every group has their primary focus and stature and prestige are usually used only sparingly, not to dilute and not to take away from focus. At the same time, other leaders, famously Martin Luther King, Joseph Lowery, transcend the narrower focus and imbed the local struggle in the broader context.

When you talk of  homophobia in the black community, do we have any real knoiwledge of how pervasive it is? We have heard so much anecdotal BS, how Jews and hispanics and white workers wouldn't support a black, I would like some actual understanding of how strong this is. I come to this very dubious.

[ Parent ]
Cede the wherefores and do na chide (0.00 / 0)

1961 to 1967 (4.00 / 7)
Barack Obama: born Aug. 4, 1961
Loving v. Virginia: decided June 12, 1967

Just sayin'.

There is no logic against gay marriage (4.00 / 1)
for someone who favors civil unions.

All the mainstream Democrats like John Kerry, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama hedge the question and tie themselves in knots because they know it is bullshit.

But you know what I am not a single issue voter. Historically, blacks got much of their power in the courts and the same has been true for gays. This is how it will continue to be. Do I wish it was different? Yes. But there you have it, not one major Democrat thinks they can support gay marriage unequivocally and get elected.

I care about gay marriage rights but I also care about universal health care, diplomacy not war, education, global warming, and competence in my government. So I am not going to apologize for my support of Barack Obama or say, "I want my vote back" because I am proud of my vote. I don't think Obama should be held to a different standard that other Democrats aren't held to. They have all chosen to delay marriage equality even though you know they all must believe in it. So Rick Warren is the least of our problems. The Democratic Party has supported bigotry and homophobia if you want to call being anti gay marriage signs of that.

There is that saying, You can have all you want, just not at the same time.

I despise Rick Warren but my sister who supported Obama and is evangelical likes him. She is not a homophobe or a bigot and she voted against Prop 8 in California. But she thinks Warren has done great things to shake up the Southern Baptist conservative mentality. Obviously, he is not a civil rights champion, but she considers him a reformer. He and Obama stood on stage two years ago and got tested for AIDS to encourage people to get tested. She told me a lot of other things about him that surprised me.

So there are Obama supporters who also like Warren. Are they not invited to the party?

oh yeah, nearly all of these Dems (0.00 / 0)
have law degrees. The entire Democratic Party is spineless on this issue.
[ Parent ]
Are GEM Of Logic! (4.00 / 4)
So there are Obama supporters who also like Warren. Are they not invited to the party?

Because the only way they are invited is if Warren gives the invocation?

Good to know!

I guess all Springsteen fans who are Obama supports are not invited, since Springsteen won't be giving the invocation.

And all the Will.I.Am fans who are Obama supports are not invited, since Will.I.Am won't be giving the invocation.

And all the Oprah fans who are Obama supports are not invited, since Oprah won't be giving the invocation.

Like I said--Good to know!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Obama asked Republicans, Indies, and (0.00 / 0)
social conservatives to vote for him. He said that he would be their president, too. He made a point of saying all that he disagrees with them on certain views, they will receive respect and even representation in his White House. I get that people here don't want him to let a conservative pastor say a prayer to bless the new president, even though some conservative evangelicals gave their time and money for Obama and want health care reform, to stop global warming, to reform education. We cannot give them a fuckin TOKEN of respect by having this man who many of them like and respect say a prayer.

Now it is you who are being deliberately obtuse.

PS -- I'm sure Oprah and Will.i.Am will be at inauguration as honored guests.

[ Parent ]
Get REAL! (4.00 / 1)
Warren is NOT some just some generic conservative pastor.

The argument you're pushing might be fine for cable, where no one actually knows anything.  But on the internets, not so much.

For example, Digby gives the best case argument for Warren:

Update:

Someone asked me who made the invocation at Bush's inauguration. It was supposed to be Billy Graham, but he was sick so his son Franklin stood in. And it was controversial, because the invocation had always been ecumenical before but Graham made it explicitly Christian for the first time.

Franklin Graham's a wonderful fellow:

  • I believe that God created one man and one woman. He gave sex to us, God did, and sex is to be enjoyed and is to be used within the bounds that God created.... In sexual behavior outside the parameters that God created, we're at high risk, and we're seeing the evidence of this with HIV/AIDS. We're outside of these parameters, and we have a huge global problem now."[5]
  • "And I think we're going to have to use every -- and I hate to say it, hellish weapon in our inventory, if need be, to defeat these [terrorists]. But let's use the weapons we have, the weapons of mass destruction if need be and destroy the enemy." (CNN, September 14, 2001)
That's not much different from Warren, who believes in assassinating foreign leaders and compares gay relationships to pedophilia. But it's hard to find a Christian minister who some people believe is responsible for genocide like Franklin Graham. That's why Warren is a middle of the road right wing pastor: he didn't commit genocide. It's an unusual standard but when it comes to the religious right, it's probably pretty fair.

So, really, all Obama had to do was invite an evangelical minister who is not part of the religious right.  Someone who just saves souls and feeds the homeless, and leaves the politics and hatemongering to the politicians.

Problem solved.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I'm confused over something (0.00 / 0)
if for example, Barack Obama actually follows through on his statement of wanting to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (current federal definition of marriage), and creates federal civil unions, is that still "separate but equal"? It seems like in that case, "federal marriage" would no longer exist, therefore civil unions would apply to both straight and gay people. So that would fit his "equal rights for everyone" shtick.

Also, since he supports "leaving state marriage up to the states", and was actually against prop 8, doesn't that still practically mean he's for gay marriage? Sure, that disqualifies him from being a "fierce" advocate on that issue, but it's not exactly the right-wing equivalence that it's sometimes painted as. It's tepid and cautious and ahem, "politically nuanced", but he's technically still on the side of gay rights.

And no, this is not me making up his position, because he's always said he's against DOMA, for federal civil unions, and for letting states decide.

Why would federal marriage cease to exist? (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
I thought DOMA is what currently defines "marriage" on the federal level (0.00 / 0)
So if DOMA goes away, then "marriage" as defined on a federal level are effectively gone (no more "marriage can only be between a man and a woman" stuff on the federal level). Then you can replace that with whatever you want, and Obama's idea is federal civil unions. In this case, since the whole "man and woman" language is removed, rights can be given out to both straight and gay couples without having to use gender-based or traditionally loaded terms.

But I could be wrong, as I'm not 100% sure on the relationship with federal marriage rights and state marriage rights, hence the "I'm confused over something" title :P

[ Parent ]
Federal marriage existed long before DOMA. (4.00 / 1)
It's the status that allows one to collect survivor's benefits from Social Security, for example, and gives one preferential treatment when filing taxes.

There are over 1,000 federal rights associated with marriage (see here: http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-... do you really think anyone is going to scrap all that and start over, just to keep the icky homosexuals from being ale to use the "M" word?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
thanks for the info n/m (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
A Con Lawyer.... (4.00 / 4)
I find the arguments defending Obama very interesting.  They are the exact opposite arguments that Obama's progressive supporters made during the primaries, when the choice was between Obama and Clinton.  Obama was "real" change. Clinton would never take a stand because all she cared about was herself and getting reelected.  Obama was going to shake up the status quo, cause world peace, make the USA look good to the world, and end social conservatism.  Clinton would simply offer more of the same. Well, sounds like Obama is so careful that all we can ever expect from him is definitely more of the same - unless, of course, it becomes dangerous to support the status quo.

PS: Although I disagree with Obama on same-sex marriage,  it is truly possible to believe in equality without viewing every single act of discrimination as an equal protection violation. I support affirmative action, for example, but that involves making racial, gender, or class distinctions.  Obama, however, cannot claim to be a fierce advocate for glbt rights when his background contains nothing other than speeches to support this assertion. Like Hillary said, he has a speech.... Do not expect much from him on gay rights. http://dissentingjustice.blogs...

Interesting Point, But... (4.00 / 6)
Somewhat paradoxically, even during the primaries there were situations where you'd hear this sort of rationale from Obamaphiles.  His lack of any meaningful anti-war action in the Senate, for example, was generally explained in terms of there being nothing he could do... but what till he got elected!

I'm not saying this to contradict you, as I think that the main thrust of your point is valid--especially whenever the talk was Obama vs. Clinton.  I'm just saying that even then there was this equivocation that always amazed me.  On the one hand, he was progressive messiah, who was going to change everything.  But, on the other hand, he was just one measly little Senator, and what could he do?

It was clearly not much in the way of rational discourse.  Of course this wasn't true of all his supporters.  But it was so commonplace that it was impossible to ignore.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
In the end, his faith based (4.00 / 1)
supporters who think he is messiah-like will turn on him.  Bound ot happen, for he is only human, will be foreced to make choices and reveal himself as flawed.  As mistkes occur, they will twist themselves into pretzels to keep the fantasy, but when the dam breaks, the flood will come.  

At that point, Obama will need the left.  Will it still be there?

 

[ Parent ]
I don't believe in the Obama fairy (4.00 / 7)
How could anyone possibly think that this was an innocuous or bipartisan gesture, let alone Obama himself?

How can anyone, let alone those of us who worked to get him elected, possibly think that it's inadvertent?

Don't waste your breath trying to persuade me that the President-elect doesn't know what egregious means.

It's definitely a signal, and the only question for me is what he's signaling, and to whom. If it's me he's talking to, and if he's telling me he'll get round to me once the front of the bus is taken care of, then I'm not happy. Not. (Even though, God knows that at this point, the front of the bus is hurting too.)

I'll let folks like Paul and Barney Frank do the bitching, cause they're much more eloquent than I am. As I see it, my job is to go rustle up some votes for people who see liberty and justice for all as job number one.

Umm... where exactly is gay marriage in the Constitution? (4.00 / 5)
That you can muster such sarcastic indignation under the assumption that OF COURSE Obama the constitutional lawyer would support gay marriage under the Equal Protection Clause shows just how little you know about the issue.

Don't get me wrong, it's possible to make the argument. Two possibilities. First, you could say, if abortion is a right, and sodomy is a right, and contraception is a right, and so on, then obviously gay marriage is a right. Why? Because, as Kennedy said in Lawrence, "As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom," and gay marriage MUST be one of those freedoms. Problem is, this argument would have to point to widespread public support for gay marriage. The Texas statute in Lawrence was a huge exception to the national consensus that sodomy was essentially okay. Blackmun, writing in Roe, tried to pretend that the relaxing laws of a couple states indicated a national consensus. This is an integral part of a Living Constitutionalist argument. But there is no national consensus on gay marriage, much as you and I would like there to be.

An alternative, more plausible constitutional argument would run like this: Marriage is a fundamental right because it is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," and thus so obviously protected that it didn't even warrant constitutional enumeration. And state laws that discriminate between people when it comes to their fundamental rights receive strict scrutiny. This is definitely a plausible argument. But the Supreme Court is not going to make it any time soon.

In fact, Obama's equivocation on the gay-rights issue is perfectly in keeping with his legal background. He's sensitive to issues of federalism and separation of powers, he's wary of endorsing judicial dictates like the California Supreme Court's, because he, like the Court, is waiting for society to move. Every time the Court jumps out in front of the public on some issue, it gets a backlash, and the same could be said of presidents. Obama is where the public is. Most people don't support gay marriage. Change their minds. Please, let's do that. But don't expect to change their minds through ideological entrenchment. And don't expect to do it through the courts. And don't expect your president to be so far out ahead of his people BEFORE he even takes office. That would be political suicide.

All very sensible, but.... (4.00 / 2)
Sensitivity to where the majority is on this issue is one thing; putting a bigot front and center at your inauguration is something else altogether. And must you refer to gay marriage as sodomy?
[ Parent ]
When does he refer to gay marriage... (4.00 / 1)
As sodomy?  He's giving other examples of privacy rights.
[ Parent ]
Yes, you're right, he's not.... (4.00 / 4)
Sometimes, though, context and juxtaposition need to be explained to lawyers, who are often entirely too pleased to think of themselves as innocent of the emotional subtexts which drive lesser mortals.

Was I projecting? Probably. I reckon won't be the only one before this is over.

[ Parent ]
And for the record... (4.00 / 1)
There are, I'm sure, far more straight people that enjoy the protections of "sodomy" than there are gay people that do. =)  Perhaps it "sounds bad" to juxtapose "sodomy" and "gay marriage", but I guess I'm just not that sensitive to it, since I don't think it's something to get that worked up about.
[ Parent ]
Fair enough (4.00 / 2)
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and all that.... As far as the etymology of the word sodomy goes, well.... A city -- an entire city, scripture tells us -- was obliterated with all its inhabitants because of its delight in practices declared to be abominations in the sight of the Lord.

I mean, I'm no Foucault or Lacan, but being aware of what's packed into that little word should be enough to give anyone pause about who we're prosecuting, or persecuting, or denying basic human rights to, and for what reasons.....

[ Parent ]
It is used... (4.00 / 1)
As a legal term, though you're right that it certainly has a negative connotation, at least in religious terms.  In any case, we've probably gone way-overboard in analyzing this, though it has been interesting. =)
[ Parent ]
Hmm.. (0.00 / 0)
Unfortunately, I think Obama and Biden's actual views on this are probably pro-Gay marriage, but they don't feel like the political cost of supporting it is worth it at this time.  Yeah, yeah... the "secret view" method, but I think, in this case, it's probably applicable.

This is really the reason why you have Biden's completely confused answer in the debate regarding Gay marriage, for instance (and how he ended up talking at length about giving gays equal rights and then ultimately said that he agreed with Palin on the topic, which is DEFINITELY not true).

Obviously, I think gays should have the right to marry just like heterosexuals, but if Obama and Biden follow through with their promise to extend federally recognized "civil unions" to anyone that wants one, well.. then we're at a point that all we're arguing over is semantics.  At some point, since they purportedly would be the exact same thing by law anyway, the line would probably just blur anyway and everyone would just refer to everything as "marriage".

I realize this is insulting to some people, and I agree... but progress is progress.  If I offer one party a $20 bill and another 2 $10s, how much is that really worth complaining about?

I refuse to believe in secret beliefs (4.00 / 7)
it's way too easy to get burned on those.  We have a hard enough time holing politicians accountable for their explicit statements, much less trying to read tea leaves and predict where they might stand.

It's really simple.  There are about four items, and if Obama and the congressional democrats deliver them, then all of this will quickly blow over:

  • repeal of DOMA
  • Passage and signing of the (trans-inclusive, as the original version that was allowed to expire in conference committee this year) Matthew Shepperd Hate Crimes law
  • Passage and signing of a Federal Non Discrimination act that will keep us from being fired for being who we are, and it sure as hell better include transfolk
  • repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

It's a relatively simple set of requests.  And frankly, I care way more about the second and third items than the first and fourth.  Or even Prop 8, for that matter.  Give us the right to work and protection from getting the shit beaten out of us (or even worse), and then we can talk about marriage.  Marriage is important, but I'm annoyed with how everything is reduced to marriage.  

Obama's said he supports all of this.  If he actually does it, then I'll give him some slack on marriage.  If he starts delaying it, then I will be pissed at him.

[ Parent ]
I agree with everything you said... (0.00 / 0)
But I do think that there probably are a few issues that politicians do feel trapped by sometimes.

For instance, Obama's stance on domestic drilling obviously changed over the course of the campaign when it appeared that it was pretty popular.  My guess is that his view on it is still the same, but that he felt like he had to give in to the polling for it.  My guess is that he doesn't completely back off of his "support" for it, but that he ends up limiting it and not really actively pursuing it in a way that, say, McCain and/or Palin probably would have.

[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 2)
Furthermore, when he signs these, I'll give him some slack on Rick Warren, the gay-basher's solace. At the moment, though, I'm pissed, and I think letting them know that I'm pissed is politically useful.
[ Parent ]
Excellent list n/t (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Gay people were perfectly willing to throw transgendered people under the bus (4.00 / 1)
Gay people were perfectly willing to throw transgendered people under the bus for a symbolic victory on the ENDA.

So obviously they do think that such tactics are perfectly fair and should support Obama when he is throwing them under the bus.  After all thats exactly what they asked transgendered people to do as they stripped the transgendered rights out of the bill.


http://transgendermom.blogspot....

We *DO* have separate but equal (4.00 / 1)
There are separate but equal facilities frequently for male and female. While one person may not feel that there should be any difference for gay marriages, others may feel that women should share combat duties, and paternity leave certainly hasn't been embraced like maternity leave. Of course gays officially aren't allowed in the military and can be thrown out if known.

So my 2 takes from this is that, 1) the solution for gay partnerships vs. marriage is possibly not as simple as a Constitutional decision but still will have to account for basic human rights, and 2) Obama's approach to this simply sucks - insulting gays, progressives and really a bunch of other interest groups that are begging for a place at the table while an intolerant bigot gets prime exposure with no effort.

everybody misses the point because controversy plays better (0.00 / 0)
but in reality, there's a buttload of gay-haters and various other terrible types in this country----and they all live here amongst us...and there's plenty that we AGREE with those people on, too.  

The point is that we need to come together DESPITE our differences, wherever we can.  Obama isnt signing an anti gay bill into law--he's reaching out to the other 48 million voters in this country.  he's going to get alot more done as a result, and none of it will have anything to do with Rick Warran's opinion.

not so sure (4.00 / 2)
On one level I am sure you are right and it makes some sense. But Obama is not just reaching out here. He is in fact validating Warren as a leading religious figure for the nation; and that means giving his teachings a respect that I do not think they deserve.

On another level, building support and growing a coalition by reaching out are good ideas. But white evangelicals are not the only group that need to be brought into a broad coalition. We on the left need to be brought in as well (or not if that is Obama/Hildebrand's choice). Once you lose trust, it is hard to give a leader the leeway that you and others feel he should be given. That is Obama's responsibility, not ours. When we watched appointments like Salazar, or Geithner, or Gates and see no effort to incorporate into his counsel any serious progressive voice from the left and then we are told by the Obama chorus that he is just choosing (no politics considered!!!) the best people for each job, then I think you have to ask is Warren the best choice of religious leader for the benediction? But that no longer is the criterion. It has now shifted to outreach. I for one do not mind honest political differences. I do not like the bullshit.  

[ Parent ]
So? You Noticed That! (4.00 / 1)
The rules definitely change according to what needs to be justified.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
The kind of equality Paul is talking about (0.00 / 0)
isn't "equal protection". Civil unions exist to give equal protection of the laws. Arguments such as the CA Supreme Court's, as far as I understand them, say that the state is compelled to use the word "marriage" because the word "marriage" conveys equal status and dignity. But the word does not convey the protection of one more law. Nor does using the word "marriage" necessarily mean that this marriage is kodesh. Government cannot grant that.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  
Brown v. Board of Education (0.00 / 0)
did turn on status and dignity. However the argument there is, "If you separate blacks from whites in school, you tell the blacks that there is something inherently unequal about them, therefore the blacks cannot get an equal education and equal protection of the laws". This could be iffy where marriage is concerned because the state does not make a marriage in the same way that it makes public education. The state certifies people's desire to be treated as a unit and provides services for them.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  
[ Parent ]
True, But Precedents Develop Over Time (4.00 / 1)
And it's certainly been long enough since Brown for it to become obvious that double standards are double standards are double standards are Plessy-like.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
I would credit civil rights legislation by Congress (0.00 / 0)
for the perception that double standards are like Plessy.

Thank you for not yelling about the kodesh part. I thought I was in big trouble.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

[ Parent ]
It's the "fierce advocate" bit that sets my teeth (4.00 / 3)
on edge. I mean, please.

It reminds me of nothing so much as that Richard Pryor routine, where he describes being in bed with another woman and his wife walks in. He passionately proclaims his innocence, and wraps it all up with "who are you going to believe -- me, or your lyin' eyes?"

Right now I'm going to have to go with my lyin' eyes.

Montani semper liberi

Not a descendent of slaves! (0.00 / 0)
What a line. Is it yours?

Jeff Wegerson
Not Exactly (0.00 / 0)
This has been commonly noted by lots of folks.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Equality has different meanings (0.00 / 0)
   There is no such thing as total equality.  Strong versus weak, smarter versus less intelligent, child bearing versus non-child bearing, etc.  So we need to define exactly what equality is desired in which parameters.
  Certainly we can easily state that gays ought to have the same opportunities and freedom from discrimination as any other person.  However, even that does not get to specifics.
  Gay marriage is a case in point in which marriage has three definitions.  One definition is a religous marriage which is usually, but not always, accepted by the State.  The second is a State marriage which conveys all the legal and tax rights specific to State (and federal) laws.  The third is a personal marriage in which two, or more, individuals consider themselves married.
  Equality is not part of the tax code as marriages ordained by the State obtain certain benefits not available to those who are not considered married by the State.  As a result the phrase "separate but equal" as defined by Plessy vs Ferguson does not apply to the tax code.  Slavery and the discrimination against blacks by considering them lesser humans has no bearing on the postion of gay marriage.
  It is just this inappropriate blending of equality of opportunity of life with opportunity of tax status that creates confusion and ultimately drives left and right up against imovable walls of hatred.
Equality before the law is pretty cut and dried. (4.00 / 4)
As it stands right now, clergymembers may be deputized by the government to perform legal marriages. The government does not tell the clergy who they must marry, they are allowed to pick and choose. However, marriages that fall into one or more of the following four categories are not legally recognized:

1) People who are below the legal age
2) People who do not want to marry
3) People who are already married to someone else
4) People of the same gender

Now, churches perform "spiritual" marriages in violation of those rules every day. Look to the FLDS for examples that break the first three rules, and the liberal mainstream churches conducting commitment ceremonies for examples breaking the fourth.

The key is that those unions have no legal standing. The ten year old third bride of a fundamentalist Mormon has no more rights to collect social security benefits (or any of the other 1,000+ benefits of marriage) than Bishop Robinson's partner of 18 years.

The struggle for marriage equality is nothing more than asking that that unnecessary and unjust fourth category be removed. The law should state that churches (and justices of the peace, etc) may marry any two consenting adults who are not already legally married to someone else.

How hard is that? Why is it hard?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
It's Very Hard (0.00 / 0)
On pseudo-sophisticates working their butts off to create false equivalences betweem left and right.

No fair thinking!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Please appease 'em, please? (0.00 / 0)
Everyone knows the general rules...

Cons didn't vote for Obama
Cons will never vote for Obama
Cons will always work against Obama

Right?  It's their M.O.  (yes, we can convert a tiny fraction of a percent - but before that occurs, bats will come flying out of your arse)

Libs did vote for Obama
Libs will always vote for Obama
Libs will always work for Obama

Moderates are generally libs who are aging, but their brain is in transition to Cons.  (Generally only IMHO)

Why on God's green earth would we appease the right?  It's like giving your charity money to a corporation for dispersment!  This belief that a scorpion will change their bahaviour is DESTRUCTIVE.  Obama and the DLC are aging and their fatty gray matter will harden into a Con.  Our time to fix problems is NOW.  We must continue the battle for our nation - with an increasingly loud voice.  Damn the media - they are bought and paid for - they will always speak for wealth.

Sorry for the rant - but it's necessary.  Appeasment has never worked (please give me an example that is real) and moving to the "middle" when the middle is the right-wing owned and operated, just isn't good enough.  Yes, O is better than Bush, but so is cholera.  O's feet must be held to the fire.  So fire away.

Is There A Constitutional Lawyer In The House? | 83 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox