| Kasz216 said: That still doesn't make it right for him to pal around with one of Prop 8's biggest supporters. I mean it's just an outright low blow and has to be pretty disfranchising. It's sad when you have to tolerate a beating just because you think the other side would be worse to you. You said you wondered why there were so many Log Cabin republicans.... This is why. Neither side is ever going to do anything for them since we've long past the days where polticians made moral stands against popular opinion.
|
I completely agree with you. Gay people are the new blacks. But just because you are "palling around" with someone doesn't mean you support everything they say. Should Democrats who support gay marriage never associate with Republicans who don't? That creates more problems than it solves.
It is disenfranchising to gay people, I completely agree, and it is unfair to them.
But what you are suggesting could make it take even longer for gay marriage to become a reality. Even if Obama managed to pass a law that made gay marriage legal (which he may not even agree with), it could easily be repealed. If Obama wants to effectively do this (assuming of course he does), the Supreme Court is his most effective route.
Souter, Kennedy, and Ginsburg will probably all retire within eight years, especially because a Democrat is President. They are the oldest justices, and are reliably to fairly liberal. Scalia is 70 years old, which means even he may kick the bucket within the next 8 years, and if not then likely within the next 4.
If Obama or a Democratic successor could replace the three liberal judges with three more liberal judges and also fill Scalia's seat with a liberal, the court would likely advocate constitutional protection of gay marriage by a 5-4 or 6-3 decision. A decision like this can take decades to reverse, and the longer it is around the less likely it will be reversed.
What you are advocating isn't necessarily in gay people's best interests. Gay marriage would become an even bigger hot button issue than it is now, and the American public might revolt if it was pushed down their throats. Republicans would run on repealing gay marriage next election, which would put us back to square one. It might even put us further back than we are now since the American public would be so enraged that the Democratic Party decided to impose this upon them.
Even if Obama made the "morally right" choice, he might ruin gay people's chance of ever being able to marry. Is that what is best for gay people? Sometimes you have to bide your time on an issue like this and not jump all over it like a frat boy all over a sorority girl.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
