Hello world!
7 years ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children." --Jesus
"Truth will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; Nay, you may kick it around all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver W. Holmes, Sr.
-- Oliver W. Holmes, Sr.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(162)
-
▼
August
(21)
- Dems and economic politics over economic progress
- 8/28 Rally: Sharpton and Libs can't help themselves
- On Mehlman: What he said . . .
- Harvesting embryos: "Promise" is subjective . . .
- Blahblahblah -- sensitivity for thee
- Confused about O's religion? Why not?
- Rev. Graham's teachable moment . . .
- Harry Reid on being a Mormon and a Democrat
- Bredesen or McWherter over Sundquist?
- Propping up spendthrift unions
- Come on Mr. President
- He'd be right at home in our Democratic Party . . .
- Update: Will SC Dems pull a Lautenberg?
- A couple things about those Boo Scouts . . .
- For your consideration . . .
- disingenuous or "gaylesbianbitransphobic"?
- Trust the Democratic Party Executive Committee
- Voting on judges in the TN primary
- Who says Big Gov't isn't "Pro-family"?
- More for the science-denying Left to ignore . . .
- Ken Whitehouse: THIS time re-districting might be...
-
▼
August
(21)
Some Good blogs
-
-
-
Dealing with Disappointment13 years ago
-
"For the children" has lost its luster14 years ago
Categories
- 2nd Amendment (2)
- a couple things (5)
- blogging (1)
- Bush Derangement Syndrome (40)
- Economics (38)
- Education (25)
- Election 2008 (361)
- elections (105)
- Energy (3)
- Environmentalism (47)
- faith (6)
- Federalism (1)
- Foreign Policy (7)
- Fred Thompson (35)
- GWOT (136)
- healthcare (20)
- immigration (8)
- Law and the Courts (117)
- Liberals and Democrats (109)
- Marriage and family (10)
- media (30)
- Military and Defense (2)
- Obama (73)
- parenting and family (8)
- Race (31)
- Religious Conservatism (95)
- Sanctity of Life (87)
- Sarah Palin (19)
- science denying (3)
- Sexuality (56)
- Sports/Pop Culture (67)
- the Media (17)
- The Tennessee Plan (17)
2 comments:
Is there any indication that, as a political matter, he isn't against it?
I mean, personally, I'd love for him to come out in favor of gay marriage. I think the fact that he doesn't provides an unfortunate instance in which his attempts not to be divisive retard a cultural conversation rather than allowing it to advance naturally. It's almost embarrassing the extent to which political hesitance has held back Democratic leadership on this issue, even as the Democratic base (and more and more of the country) becomes increasingly pro-marriage.
But the guy has said "no marriage" all through the campaign. His administration has carefully avoided any open battle on gay rights, let along DOMA or the marriage issue itself. He didn't support Prop 8 and similar state initiatives, but he also didn't fully throw his weight behind the opposition - so much so that many gay activists blamed him in part for the proposition's passage. And, now, when the courts are making a pro-marriage outcome a real possibility...he's taking precisely the same tack he was when state courts were giving anti-marriage or mixed rulings left and right.
I think it's fair to say that, on a personal level, Obama has a much more positive attitude towards gays than conservative opponents of gay marriage. But he's (unfortunately!) made a consistent point of opposing gay marriage in real, political terms. How is that disingenuous, when the right is always insisting that their opposition to gay marriage reflects no personal animus on their parts?
Oh, you're right, I've been mistaking his opposition . . . it's to using the term "marriage." My bad.
But I appreciate your thoughtful (I'll let the personally animus-tic "retard" comment slide) comment. But let's break this down further. Obama appears to believe that homosexual activity is morally consistent with the Bible or Christianity or "his faith"; and Obama appears to believe that someone who engages (or wants to engage) in homosexual behavior should be a protected minority, which means any couple of persons who engage in homosexual activity (and I guess who share the same address?) are entitled to all the privileges and benefits of married persons; so why does he "disagree with gay marriage"?
But I guess you're asserting that doing something for a political reason (but not admitting that you're doing it for a political reason) is not disingenuous?
Post a Comment