Thursday, May 10, 2012

Sexual Healing


I'm glad President Obama has finally said what needed saying about same-sex marriage. It took him way too long, particularly since he'd been pretty unequivocal when running for state office. Has he, like all politicians, been playing footsie on a tough issue? Well, sure, and it's too bad. Not as bad as Rominee -- nobody is -- but until now, they'd not been his finest hours. Yet, I understand he's is a politician, and, as is their wont, has been trying to thread a needle. At least, unlike so many others on so many issues of the day, he found his way back to the light.

I doubt there's much political gain in it for him: probably the opposite. It won't change minds, and it'll just further energize those who see in him an evil secret America-hating Muslim Nazi socialist communist Kenyan terrorist whose life was programmed before birth to come and destroy us. (How clever, his overlords, to foresee, at the height of racial strife, and while planning the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, that creating a mixed-race baby of a Muslim father would be just the ticket!) After all, who can forget the Rovian plan, successful plan, when George Bush was running, to get gay marriage issues on state ballots to increase the hater turnout. For hate is what motivates a critical mass of right wing voters, and this won't do anything to lessen it. (Similarly, the fact that Rominee bullied a gay student in prep school will likely raise the esteem in which he's held by homophobes. A person who was there at the time described Rominee's behavior as like "Lord of the Flies.") Nor do I think the votes of a few more gays, most of whom would be voting for him anyway -- notwithstanding his marriage waffling, he'd done far more for gay rights than any president -- would change election outcomes.

So I consider it a brave move, a moral one, and I applaud it. Still, there's something that bothers me. It seems that, although he made his views perfectly clear, he seems still to think that states have a right to decide.

Gay rights are civil rights. The only arguments against gay marriage and other rights are religious ones, based on a book full of contradictions on much more serious matters than marriage. Killing your kids, for one. To believe gays should be discriminated against, you have to believe that homosexuality is a choice, and that it's religiously prohibited. The first is clearly scientifically wrong (what??? You mean right-wingers reject facts to maintain their deep-seated prejudices and belief in pre-failed policies??); the second has no business in civil law. If you believe in the Constitution (you know, like all those teabaggers) then you can't reconcile the idea of states voting away the civil rights of a class of citizens based on sexual preference any more than you can do so based on skin color. Or gender. And, yes, I'm well aware that there are plenty of right-wingers who'd happily do both.

In making his stand, I don't see much upside for President Obama, other than easing his conscience. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was Michele who finally got him to do it. But whereas he made a gutsy move, he's still not quite all the way there.


9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I thought BHO was a constitutional scholar? Didn't he study Loving vs Virginia? I figured he'd know that case since it made it legal to "make" him and prevented the .gov from limiting an individual's choice of mate(s).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

By the way, BHO raised around $1 million in 90 minutes after announcing his "evolution" (actually a "regression", since he supported it "back in the day") and it's already being used by his campaign.

Maybe if Texas inmate #11593-051 affirmed his strong support for FREEDOM & LIBERTY and the Presidential Pardon (especially for the incarcerated in Texas), he wouldn't have lost 59% to 41% to BHO in the WVa Democratic primary?

Regards,
PT

p.s. So since the govt has no right to limit another's choices of mates, I've gotta ask about multiple spouses, animals, and dolls. You know it's coming. I guess it's all fair game?

Sid Schwab said...

Wow, PT, you really have descended into trolldom, haven't you?

Even when we agree, you can't resist your newly-acquired tactics.

Dolls? Not so sure. Unlike polygamy, it isn't in the bible, far as I know. Animals? Guess you'll have to specify. In the South, where anti-gay legislation is now in every Confederate state, they refer to certain quadripeds as "stump trained." My Alabama pal in Vietnam taught me the term. Sorta what you'd call matrimony lite, if you get my meaning.

And, yes, I've received countless fundraising emails over Obama's statement (I guess you think the RWS™ aren't doing the same, huh?), and I find it damn annoying.

Montag said...

It is good to see someone take a stand for what they believe.

People constantly say they want to vote for someone who says what they mean..., but they really want someone who agrees with their prejudices.

Frank Drackman said...

Sid, I swear, PT's not me...
For one thing, I would never cite Wikipedia as a source.
USE it, sure, but I'm not in School anymore, my daughters think I made up "The Immigrant Song"...
"Said what needed saying about SSM"???
Ummm...That it should be decided at the State level??, some 33-6 aginn' last time I checked, damn those homo-fobic Californians!!!
In fact YOUR Progressive State votes on it later this year as do that Red Neck State of Minn-a-So-Da...
Oh, you agreed with me about the Leavin' it up to the States part...
And with his 16 year cycle of changing phases, Oh, I'm sorry "Evolving" the EICOTUS is almost as long as the Saros...
But seriously, EICOUTUS is gonna get nominated in North Cack-a-Lacky???
Somewhere Jessie Helms is smiling...
A man I actually stuck an IV in one time, my second most famous Celebrity IV.
The other was Sheryl Crow :), and bet you won't see those 2 names linked anywhere else...

Frank

Sid Schwab said...

P.S, PT: as a student of historical veracity, you might find this article of interest.

Sid Schwab said...

And, oh yeah: libertarian stalwart that you are, I'm sure you've already read this.

Sid Schwab said...

Frank, I think it's shameful that any state, including WA, is voting whether to allow (or, in the case of my state, to remove) civil rights.

I've written letters to the editor about it; so it'll be fine.

Anonymous said...

Trollish? Just trying to lighten up the mood with all the weeping and gnashing of teeth around here. Besides, what fun is a circle jerk (pun intended) of agreement? Half the fun is gently poking (pun NOT intended) the grumpy old surgical bear.

So, how does one tell the difference between a "Flip-Flop" and an "Evolution"? (poke)

Regards,
PT, which in a mirror spells TP

p.s. Did you really just link me to a book about a gay priest named Tit?

Anonymous said...

Ahem...
So Christianity has never tolerated gay anything...right?

Wait, what?

How about "The time when same-sex marriage was a Christian rite"

"between the 10th and 12th centuries, Christian churches had little problem performing same sex marriage"

I can hear the seething whargarbles already! Squirm, you Right Wing Worms!

See... there were these two Roman soldiers (they are saints now): Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs.

It gets Better:

"The oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as erastai, or lovers."

"In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today."

"In addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the Office of Same-Sex Union (10th and 11th century), and the Order for Uniting Two Men (11th and 12th century)."

The article goes on...and on...and onnnnnnn!

Another scizocristic talking point eats it...the dust that is!

Readit@:

http://www.iheartchaos.com/post/22806986381/the-time-when-same-sex-marriage-was-a-christian-rite

And a good shit hemorrhage to all the scizocristic RWS out there!

You might forward the link to the Romomnee; he can think about while he tries to remember that little incident where he organized an led a little screaming assault and battery on a defenseless kid, the one he just can't recall, but is so sorry for.

What kind of a person could forget something like that…hmmmm?

A sociopath? A liar, a Republican… but I repeat myself!

Oh schadenfreude, Oh schadenfreude the past barfs up the guy they goyed!

Lov'n how it goes around, and then comes around!!!

Over to you Drekman...SSWoman?

EugeneInSanDiego

Popular posts