Do the Right Thing

It's nice to know that President Obama is still capable of surprising in a positive way.  Today, the day after a rather bad showing for the side of marriage equality proponents in the crucial swing state of North Carolina, President Obama nonetheless came out -- as it were -- for the first time in favor of same sex marriage.

I had been worried that his "evolution" on the matter would not occur until sometime in January of 2013 and that we were going to be subject to some painful evasions of the issue between now and then.  But to his great credit, he has made a stand that will serve him well from a historical perspective.  How this will translate in the electoral arena remains to be seen.  My gut reaction is that it will not change many votes, although it certainly may drive up enthusiasm in certain quarters.

I also hope it will prove helpful with some of the black churches in places like Maryland where there has been some real ugliness shown on the issue. 

Anyway, it is something worth celebrating. And I hope that people on our side will give the President due credit for this.  It is a genuine act of courage by a politician who is often accused by the left of playing things too safe.  This is not one of those instances.  

Update:  As I suspected there is naturally some liberal quibbling ("libbling?") about the President not having done enough.  In this instance it is Dan Savage, Dana Goldstein, and John Cook --  the latter with a particularly jejune post entitled "Obama's Bullshit Gay Marriage Announcement" (Jesus wept) -- all opining that Obama's announcement lacks significance because he indicates that marriage remains a state issue.  Cook is especially dismissive, saying the President's endorsement "amounts to much less than meets the eye. He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn't believe they have a right to do so."  Thus, what Obama has done is actually "a half-assed cowardly cop out."  [What a churlish asshole this guy is.]

There are days when being on the left is as enjoyable as having a pitch fork driven into your eyes. 

Where to begin?  Marriage is in fact traditionally something that is handled at the state level in our system.  Obama by himself has little power to change this.  At an immediate level there are a couple of approaches he can take.  One is to undermine the Defense of Marriage Act, which, among other things, stands as an impediment to lawful same sex marriages being recognized in all states.  And hey, what do you know, the Obama Administration has opined that DOMA is unconstitutional and has withdrawn from defending it in the federal courts.  Beyond this, arguments on behalf of a constitutional right to same sex marriage are the province of the courts.  Only they can decide that the equal protection clause guarantees the right to same sex marriage to all Americans.  The second is to appoint judges likely to determine that such a constitutional right exists -- even after LBJ signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, interracial marriage remained unlawful in many states until the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia in 1967 -- it was not something that LBJ was able to remedy.  (But I guess given how minimal the value of Obama's efforts, that a  President Romney would be just as likely to do this.)  And lastly, the President can help try and move the culture writ large to recognize the dignity of all Americans and advance the cause of equality.  I have faith that he will do this.   

Again, I would urge everyone of good will to view this as a pretty monumental day and ignore this naysaying.

 

Comments

[kathy a.]

yay! couldn't agree more. i'm sorry, i wrote something longish in comments to the last post before i saw this one.

[Paula B]

I think you're right on everything but the black churches issue. That's a longstanding issue in black churches and, from where I sit, it doesn't seem to matter where those churches are. I know very educated and politically liberal black people in NE who have switched church membership over a church's stand on gay marriage and gay ordination. They were against it. Some black clergy don't equate civil rights with marriage rights, especially if they are old, or grew up in Africa or the Caribbean. Maybe it's more of a generational astigmatism than a cultural one.

[oddjob]

I've read numerous times before that as awkward as it can be to be a gay white American it's much more awkward to be a gay black American. I have the impression that a lot of gay black Americans don't feel fully welcome by either the white gay community or the black American community, especially not in many black American churches (despite how much less music there'd be if all the gay black church musicians and singers came out).

[low-tech cyclist]

Just eight years ago, the GOP was quite successfully using the gay marriage issue as a 'wedge issue' to rally their supporters and win the Presidential election, as well as a lot of down-ticket races.

So even though things have changed a lot in just eight years, it did take a certain amount of courage for Obama to come out in favor of gay marriage now, rather than next January.

That the President of the United States has taken a stand in favor of equal marriage rights for gays is, as Joe Biden might say, a big fucking deal. Today doesn't mark the end of legalized discrimination against gays - far from it, unfortunately - but you can see the end of it from here.

[kathy a.]

it is probably fair to say that some black churches are going through some "evolution" on this issue. (as other churches have -- there are splinter episcopalian congregations that broke from the mainstream episcopalian church over this and other issues. the parish where i was raised was one of them.) it's weird, because this really is a civil rights issue.

i'm still seeing news accounts talking about biden's recent "gaffe" in "breaking with obama" on same-sex marriage. that's a hoot. this interview did not happen because biden misspoke. biden and the recent statements of others within the administration were trial balloons before the big announcement, obviously.

[Paula B]

"gaffe" and "breaking with O" probably from GOP-stream media.

[Paula B]

Just got a card from a friend, saying "North Carolina -- where you can marry your cousin, just not your gay cousin."

[oddjob]

there are splinter episcopalian congregations that broke from the mainstream episcopalian church over this and other issues

Indeed. The strain is now at the point where the entire collection of Anglican churches around the world is probably going to split in two over those issues.

(For those who care to know the Anglican Communion constitutes all the churches that once were part of the Church of England. As England's colonies became sovereign nations the parishes of the Church of England within those former colonies typically also became separate, sovereign Anglican churches whose priests & bishops no longer directly answered to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not surprisingly the member churches in the developed world often hold much more liberal theological stances than the member churches in the developing world do. That's causing enormous strain now.)

(I also was raised Episcopalian.)

[oddjob]

it's weird, because this really is a civil rights issue.

They only see it in terms of sinful sexual behavior.

[Paula B]

Charles Pierce on Obama, gay marriage and at least one reason to be proud of the US: http://bit.ly/KboOyW

[kathy a.]

yeah, it's real sexytime when the kid is barfing and running a 103 fever, or somebody's in surgery or chemo or something -- or on a lesser note, when it's time to sign up for camp, or restock the pantry, or dish something up for dinner, or make sure the laundry is done before morning, or do the litter box. i speak from experience: the "for better or worse" clause encompasses a whole lot that is not sinful or sexy.

my childhood parish seceded and now calls itself an anglican church. there has been litigation about ownership of the church property for years. it is pretty appalling, even though i am no longer a believer. my ideas about social justice began in part at that church; i may have abandoned belief in the big guy in the sky, but not those other lessons about fairness and caring.

[low-tech cyclist]

You'd think that even if no other Republicans could find anything good to say about this, the Log Cabin Republicans would be the exception. You would be wrong.

That the president has chosen today, when LGBT Americans are mourning the passage of Amendment One, to finally speak up for marriage equality is offensive and callous,” said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. “Log Cabin Republicans appreciate that President Obama has finally come in line with leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney on this issue, but LGBT Americans are right to be angry that this calculated announcement comes too late to be of any use to the people of North Carolina, or any of the other states that have addressed this issue on his watch. This administration has manipulated LGBT families for political gain as much as anybody, and after his campaign’s ridiculous contortions to deny support for marriage equality this week he does not deserve praise for an announcement that comes a day late and a dollar short.

For the first time ever, a sitting President has come out in favor of gay marriage rights. But he did it on the wrong day!! You can't make this stuff up.

You'd think there would be no wrong day for an announcement like this.

What a bunch of losers.

[kathy a.]

i submit that the log cabin republicans are feeling a tad stressed right now. there is no way for them to stay republican if they are gay. (your opinions on how they might have managed that so far are not gonna help.) this is something they just need to work out themselves.

[oddjob]

" “We’ve arrived at a point where the President of the United States is going to lead a war on traditional marriage,” Rush Limbaugh said on his show Wednesday."

His first, second, third, and fourth wives could not be reached for comment.

Nice bit of snark seen on a comment thread over at Talking Points Memo. :)

[oddjob]

there has been litigation about ownership of the church property for years.

And that seems to be the usual course once a conservative Episcopal parish decides to leave. All of a sudden it dawns on them that now that they're on their own they no longer have a right to the building.

[oddjob]

What a bunch of losers.

That's all the Log Cabin Republicans have ever been.

[oddjob]

Kudos as well to Fox News anchor Shepherd Smith, who matter-of-factly noted in passing that the GOP is on the wrong side of history on this issue.

[nancy]

Did the Log Cabin guys (all guys I believe) really think that the NC vote would have changed with an earlier statement?

Well yes they did. And over at FDL, they are busy doing what they do so well and on cue. Here's a sample from comments:

BAH HUMBUG!

When it comes down to it, Obummer’ll slink away to be Mr. Bipartisany & will ask some other majorly homophobic asshole who’s to the right of Rick Saddleback Warren to do the invocation (or whatever it is) at his inauguration if he wins. And then he’ll do fuck all for LGBT rights in his 2d term.

Second Verse: WORSE than the first. Guaranteed.

and

You’re a day late, OilBomber.

Fuck you.

On edit – I’d like to add to that ‘Fuck you’ a ‘, you punk fucking coward.’

Swell. Stay home. Don't vote. Enjoy your new and expanded SCOTUS, idiots.

[Sir Charles]

To say that Log Cabin Republicans might have some issues is such a ludicrous understatement.

Boys, you're party hates you and you hate yourselves.

Obama is not your problem.

[low-tech cyclist]

To the extent that I care at all, I'd be interested to know if the Log Cabin boys were advocating before Tuesday's vote for Obama to take a stand on the amendment.

Maybe they weren't paying attention when Obama's brief and minimal statement about Trayvon Martin made support for George Zimmerman de rigeur for every wingnut in the nation? I'm sure Team Obama was paying attention, and they surely understood that what slim chances existed for defeating the amendment depended on his staying out of that fight.

Moreover, speaking out for gay marriage rights today, in the wake of the North Carolina vote, makes the point even clearer that he's not waiting to jump out in front of the parade at a point when his leadership would be superfluous. While he's taken a stand on the right side of history, it's going to be a long time yet before this struggle's over, done with, and safely in the history books.

Oh yeah: and what's Dick Cheney ever done for gay rights? (Other than perhaps having made a barely-noticed statement of support from the safety of his retirement.) Gimme a break.

[kathy a.]

it would be something if cheney spoke up, wouldn't it?

not happening.

[low-tech cyclist]

On a completely unrelated and hopefully amusing note, I think Jonah Goldberg's new look has to be deliberate. First there was Chunky Bobo; now conservatives have Chubby Trotsky!

[nancy]

There are days when being on the left is as enjoyable as having a pitch fork driven into your eyes.

That's for 100% sure. Which is why I added the FDL lunacy above. But it's all over planet left. Sigh.

[kathy a.]

via balloon juice, here's a list of accomplishments regarding equality which all happened before today.

i don't know what anyone is whining about.

[oddjob]

Other than perhaps having made a barely-noticed statement of support from the safety of his retirement.

Cheney did more than that, but only by a little. While Vice President he said more than once in response to questions by reporters that he supported civil unions (& perhaps full marriage equality, but I can't remember at the moment), but he also acknowledged that on this issue as a Republican he held a minority position.

[oddjob]

Republican leaders in Colorado's House of Representatives recently tried to kill a bill authorizing civil unions, but the governor is calling the legislature back into special session, in part to vote on the civil unions bill (& it's likely to pass).

Hat tip, Sully.

[Paula B]

Here's what just ended, thanks to BHO;
*the will-he or won't-he speculations
*attacks from the left for not standing up for LGBT rights
*attacks from the right for being wishy washy on gay rights
*Romney's free lunch on the issue, which allowed him to squiggle all over the place and even humiliate a respected staffer
*the endlessly looping arguments that, although important, distract us from those affecting even more people, such as the economy, health care reform for all, various wars and the way the right is trying to turn back the clock to 1957
*the chance that any Republican can get away with not disclosing his or her opinion on the issue of gay marriage
*the assumption that only those living in radically tinged states, like Massachusetts, California, New York, are in favor of equal rights in marriage. No more finger pointing! He made the stand for equal marriage rights respectable, kind of like what LBJ did for civil rights in his famous 1965 speech the week after Bloody Sunday in Montgomery AL. That may have been Johnson's shining moment, and so might this be for Obama.
Everything should be clearer now to voters. All those liberals who say they just can't bring themselves to vote for Obama, will have to think twice before they fail to vote or waste their vote.

[oddjob]

...The courts, as Obama, the former law professor, must be well aware, will take notice. Two big gay-rights cases--one challenging California's revocation of gay marriage, the other challenging the Defense of Marriage Act--are on their way toward the Supreme Court. With his switch from ambivalence to advocacy, Obama is sending a signal to the courts that the country is ready for gay marriage, giving them more cover to uphold it. Courts may not go by poll results, but they do like to stay within the mainstream. And Obama has just moved it.

[low-tech cyclist]

oddjob - with respect to Cheney, you'd have to dig out a quote for me.

Much as I admire and respect Adam Serwer, Serwer got it wrong about Cheney taking a pro-gay-marriage stance back in 2004.

Here's the full text of Cheney's remarks at the occasion Serwer references. And here's the relevant part:

With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free -- ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to. The question that comes up with respect to the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction, or approval is going to be granted by government, if you will, to particular relationships. Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that basic fundamental decision in terms of defining what constitutes a marriage. I made clear four years ago when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had with Joe Lieberman that my view was that that's appropriately a matter for the states to decide, that that's how it ought to best be handled.

Cheney drew a clear distinction between relationships (he said he believed everyone ought to be free to be in whatever relationships they desire) and legal sanction for those relationships. With respect to the latter, he said that the states should decide.

But nowhere in his remarks did he suggest that he'd prefer it if the states chose to give the legal sanction of marriage to gay relationships.

[oddjob]

You're digging out the quotes I'm thinking about. It did come up, he did reply. His replies were tepid, but not anti. (They indicated he wasn't going to help, but that he wouldn't stand in the way like most Republicans would.)

Like I said - a little more, but only just a little.

[low-tech cyclist]

My point would be that, as best as I can tall, Cheney did not come out in favor of marriage equality, or even civil unions, at any point during the Bush years. He thought a Constitutional amendment against gay equality was taking things too far. That's all. Believing the states should decide is inherent in that.

I think we can all agree that Obama's gone way, way further for gay rights than merely opposing a Constitutional amendment against gay rights.

[oddjob]

Obama has done more for gay Americans than any other American president in history, and that's a fact.

[Crissa]

So true, oddjob.

The whiners who'd have him do more are the ones who are never satisfied. I'd have liked it had he done more, sure, but he's exceeded all others. And I count actions, ot just words.

Soft words are fine with me, as long as the actions are right.

[KN]

I read the first few comments and then had to jump in so apologies if I make points others have made or ignore good arguments I have not seen.

This whole issue hinges on two simple things. The first is that marriage is both a secular/legal state and a religious state. By whatever interpretation the religious version of marriage can be readily accomodated, do whatever the hell you want. No one cares.
However, on the secularlar level the distinction is the exact opposite. Everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. The laws being passed, the constitutional amendments being passed at the state level are all in controversion of this simple principle. So they are unconstitutional. Ultimately they will be overturned or, saddly, their import will become moot because the whole of civilization will be in crisis.

As to those who bitch and moan that Obama is not doing enough, well, do any of you think you could walk a mile in his shoes? Seriously? I thought not.

If you think about it a little it is not hard to think of him as the first world leader in history, because the world economy is benchmarked on the US economy. And by his actions, circumscribed and diluted though they were by the interests who benefitted from the crisis, kept the global economy from collapsing. One of the deepest flaws of the US collective awareness is that we so easily forget that we are just a small fraction of the greater world. Today we hold a certain hegemony over the greater world, tomorrow may be very different. So we should consider how we relate to that greater world, we do after all have the choice to be either benighn, or even benificent, or tyrannical and imperialistic.

The rest of the world constitues more than 23 times the population of the US.Some would see that as a threat, I see it as an enourmous resource. The only problem with the idea of achieving some kind of near equlibrium economy is the ingrained idea that a few people have a supersticious right to obscene wealth.

While millions starve.

[scott]

I agree with the post. Recognizing that the comparison is way kinder to Obama's statement than it deserves, historians have pointed out, for example, the limited practical impact of the Emancipation Proclamation and Lincoln's cynical motives in making it (didn't actually free any slaves, exempted the border state allies, etc.) All true, and I have no problem with them noting that for the sake of perspective and with Obama's critics performing the same service to keep things in context. But there is a larger issue here, and it's the value of a simple moral message powerfully delivered. At a stroke, Lincoln gave the nation a strong moral reason to crush the rebellion and cowed Britain and France from taking sides against it on behalf of slave owners. From here on, similarly, the stakes get raised, and by using the bully pulpit Obama's put those who want to discriminate against gay people on the defensive, and they have to answer the question of why they're on the wrong side of history. Powerful stuff.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

As perhaps Obama's strongest critic here -- but not from the HAG (Hamster-Arevosis-GG) perspective -- let me simply say that I agree 100% with Scott's comments, and Paula's at 10:42 above. (I particularly love Scott's Emancipation Proclamation analogy. I may 'borrow' it if I comment elsewhere.)

But I have to respond as well to Crissa. I am not, I hope, a 'whiner who's never satisfied.' (if I am, the echoes of the Prince song running through my head should be punishment enough) I simply believe that he could have done the same things, and more, and that he could have, as well, 'changed the discourse' and shown Republican homophobia if he'd done them wearing his "Leader" hat rather than simply his "Executive" one.

If wanted, I'll have more to say, but I'm still much more interested in the Romney bullying story.

[oddjob]

I particularly love Scott's Emancipation Proclamation analogy. I may 'borrow' it if I comment elsewhere.

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates has also noted that Obama's behavior in this matter reminds him of Lincoln's.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I do need to respond to Sir Charles' addendum which I hadn;t read carefully. In particular I want to deal with the "should be allowed to' rather than 'have a right to' question. Rather than characterize your comments, I'll make my point with a question:

Would it have been inappropriate for a President, say, Eisenhower, to say "People should have the right to have their vote counted the same as any other person's vote" before Baker v Carr was decided. For that matter, to take your own example, only SCOTUS could decide Loving but does that mean than Johnson would have been wrong to say that a man and woman should have a right to get married if they wished to, regardless of the race of the people concerned."

Note that I am not supporting Cook's thesis or condemnation. If Obama's words could be used to support such a distinction, I'd put it down to the clumsiness and inability to think things through that I find to be his greatest fault, not to some sort of deliberate hair-splitting on his part. But i do kinda wish he hadn't said it that way.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I think that Obama has actually gone a step better than this -- his administration ceased defending DOMA on the grounds that they believe it is unconstitutional. This is not just rhetoric -- it's an action -- and a fairly radical one -- that the president could and did take to make the case that the 14th amendment protects the right of gays to marriage equality.

[nancy]

Sir C -- Happy end of son's gap time effort, methinks!

Whoosh. A year goes by. Just like that. :^) Congrats.

[kathy a.]

have to agree -- refusing to defend DOMA on the ground it is unconstitutional is huge. and active, not just rhetoric.

congrats to the young squire, sir charles!

[KN]

SC - exactly, equal protection.

Two points further - #1 even if all the anti-gay marriage laws were overturned by the SC, it would not change much, there would still be discrimination and there would still be egregious wrongs done in the name of some abstract morality. Only time will eventually bring about a modicum of true equality. #2 In my recollection going back to high school days (1966) I had at least two rather good friends who were gay, one I had no clue about, the other was more overt. Neither one bothered me in any sense of the word, and I frankly did not understand that they might be bullied and stigmatized, if they were I was not aware of it. So the idea that this issue has not been 'out there' until recently is bull puckey, it has been, it has simply been ignored by the majority. Come to think of it since Hellenistic Greece... anyway, the upshot of the thought here is that this is really a non-issue. I do not mean it should be ignored, it should be a no-brainer, but the RWNJs trade off it to rile up their base and get them to vote. I find the linkage a disturbing factioid. Particularly because election turn outs are so pathetic. So we end up having a bunch of fanatics, who are actually a small minority, becoming the swing votes on major and critical policy issues.

Prup, what's so interesting about Rmoney being a bully since he was a teenager, but note, a legally responsible teenager? Perhaps this will resonate more with the hoi polloi, I'm not so sure about that though, what should certainly resonate with them though is that he started out rich and privileged, found a handy way to leverage that into even more rich and more privileged, and is now seeking to be the standard bearer for the rest of the 1% to slant thinks further in their favor. Anyone who makes less than $500,000 a year and votes for him is an idiot in my book.

I'm also curious about your styling yourself as Obama's greatest critic on this site, you may well be, but perhaps only because others refrain from adding to the cacaphony. Criticism is vital to a robust argumentative deliberative process, but it has to be honest and it has to be intended to be constructive. I generally refrain from criticising Obama because I am fairly sure that I will not be heard and even if I was, the stridency and hysteria of the 'real' opposition is such that it could have no impact.

In a perfect world I might be more inclined to lean in the same direction as you, but this is crazy town. Constructive criticism obviously is still needed, but lets face it, neither you nor I have any voice in that. But we can have an effect on others who may be less aware, less informed, and less inclined to invest their thought processes in assessing political conditions. So how exactly does adding yet another voice to the hew and cry of idiotic slander and libel does our considered criticism actually accomplish anything? These are sincere questions.

Ciao,

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Still haven't had the time to go on with the Romney bullying story -- or to respond to KN's excellent questions --but had to pass this one on. A school in Arizona just forfeited the state championship rather than play against a team which allowed a 'girl' to play.

The school is connected with the 'traditionalist' -- and anti-Semitic to the point of Holocaust Denial -- Society of St. Pius X, the Lefebrveist split-away from Catholicism that Pope Ratzinger has been trying desperately to find a way to accept 'back into the fold.' (This was the group that got publicity during the Mel Gibson flap, the one his father -- at least -- supported.)

Two interesting side points. During the regular season, the other school had benched Paige Sulzbach 'out of respect for the other school's beliefs' but felt they couldn't do it for the playoffs.

And, on the Society, if you were surprised to hear the Catholic position against contraception announced during the Santorum campaign, Little Rickey was a liberal. Click on the link in the link and read their questioning whether using the rhythm method is mortally sinful or merely venial.

[kathy a.]

KN -- obviously, gays have been around for a long time. when i was tiny (1957-60), my parents were friends with neighbors who were a gay couple. my parents were quite republican, too. i think that because it was not a political issue at that time, they were able to just be comfortable with the friendship. (my mother, oddly, loved gay men but was fanatically paranoid about lesbians.)

but it would be a mistake to say there was no bullying and no discrimination -- that was not true in the larger world of the last 50 years, and is not true for many today. the trevor project would not exist if gay kids were not being bullied, sometimes to the point of suicide. there would be no need to keep pressing for equal right if rights were equal. it is highly disturbing to see the push to repeal whatever gains might have been made -- for example, the vote in north carolina was not just to put a no-gay-marriage clause into the constitution, but to roll back domestic partnership rights.

romney's bullying incident is disturbing on several levels, not the least of which is that he appears to have been the leader. sure, he was a juvenile, and we know kids make bad decisions, but he does not appear to be acknowledging a bad decision. he was in no danger of arrest -- the people involved were scared to report, and even if he had been arrested, his family most likely would have rescued him somehow from a finding of juvenile delinquency.

as for whether he was a "legally responsible" juvenile -- why wouldn't he be? there are no allegations he was mentally impaired, mentally ill, operating under duress. juveniles face charges for these kinds of things all the time. juveniles ARE generally treated differently from adults -- the charges are not criminal, but there is a finding of whether or not one is delinquent, and then punishment. (except now, a lot more juveniles are "tried as adults" -- which is crazy, but that was not happening back then, even if he had been arrested.) but none of these questions came up because nobody reported the incident. there was no doubt a code of not ratting, just as we have heard about often with criminal gangs.

[oddjob]

their questioning whether using the rhythm method is mortally sinful or merely venial

Shaking head in disbelief....

[oddjob]

none of these questions came up because nobody reported the incident

That long ago it's very possible - or likely - that even if the victim had reported it either to the school authorities or the police that neither would have done anything about it.

[low-tech cyclist]

I've never understood how anyone could think DOMA is Constitutional. The purpose of the law is to create an exception to the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. And you can't do that by statute.

[kathy a.]

what, you expect legislators to understand how laws interact with the constitution? ha. they have better things to do, like posture for their donors and so forth. (snark snark snark.)

[KN]

kathy a. - what I was really addressing was that by all the reports of this that I have read mittens was 18 yrs. old at the time and that qualified him as an "adult". At least that was the rule applied to the ~57,000 draftees who paid for that dubious distinction with their lives in Vietnam.

Do I think that really matters or mattered then? Yes and no respectively but I am not at all naive, he would have skated, 100%.

I have no doubt there was enough bullying in the 60s to give whomever was identified as possibly gay plenty of grief, I was just unaware of any of it and to the best of my recollection there were no suicides because of it, in fact no suicides at all. I did Jr. High and High school mostly in St. Louis and I had my share of run ins with dumb jocks who just resented the fact that I got better grades than they did. So I am sure it occurred but I was never witness to any of it and thus cannot offer any testimony.

In retrospect I think that it was more a matter of awareness than indifference for most people. In different environments, different standards prevailed.

After leaving the cloisters of St. Louis and living in NYC for a year or so I became aware that there was a whole culture of gay people who were really no different from me in any particular respect except that they like people exactly like them selves, sexually. I didn't particularly, and they accepted that, so I had no problem with them. I did not see them as predatory but rather even more lonely than I was.

Looking forward to Prup's response.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

A couple of quick points. First, sorry to trump you, kathy, but my mothers were together since sometime in the late 30s until Claire died in 1967 -- shortly, ironically, before Stonewall. (I've said that one of the strongest personal pushes for my own advocacy of SSM is wanting other couples to have what Billie and Claire must have dreamed of but could never fully believe would ever be possible.)

(On bullying today, btw, the NHL-sponsored "You Can Play" Project just introduced another video. I wish MLB was doing something similar.)

But the Romney incident is important, both personally and politically. I'll put myself in the 'we all did dumb, dangerous, and even criminal things as teenagers' camp, and won't condemn the act itself. The response, however is the real damning revelation.

"I don't remember it." ???!!! I hope, 'for the sake of his soul' that this is just another Romney lie, to join the weekly compendium Steve Benen compiles. The total should be approaching 300 but that includes a lot of duplicates as he repeats the same disproven assertions from week to week.

But if it is true, that's tragic. No details, of course, but if any of you have your own 'youthful follies' particularly specific incidents that were powerful, do you ever forget them, or the details of them. Or am I just more obsessive than most, because I can picture things like time of day, a video-game accurate picture of the place where they occurred, etc.

But let's take this to the political impact. And this is yet another example of what I have been insisting about Romney. People do vote for the person, not just the political ideas. And they should, because it is a human being making the decisions, acting on the principles, etc. His character, his intelligence, his judgment, even his likabiity, all will affect what he does. Sure, you can overdo the 'who would you rather have a beer with' bit, but I think it is as wrong to dismiss it out of hand. We do choose our friends at least partially on the same characteristics we want in a leader, in a politician. (Actualy, it works better in reverse. If our immediate reaction is that -- ignoring politics -- we wouldn't want to have a beer, or be in a card game, or generally hang out with a person, we'd probably find it came from some instinctive dislike tht we might be able to pin down if we looked at it.)

Romney has shown an incredible talent for inspiring just that sort of negative response, and that's long before he's had the really concentrated fire that the Obama campaign will rain down on him. Fo almost everyone, somewhere they have been injured, offended, affronted, or worse by someone who, in retrospect, looks more and more like Mitt Romney. Was it the Boss' son, who took the job you were qualified for? Or the bunch of Preppie bullies that embarrrassed you, or maybe hazed you? The boss that fired you, or the loan officer that made it clear that 'someone like you was obviously not worth spending time on' as he turned you down? The guy in the Beemer who grabbed the parking spot you'd been trying to get for a quarter of an hour and laughed as he drove away?

Think this sort of stuff is trivial, that it doesn't affect how people vote? Do you know any real fanatic animal people? (I'm a cat person but not, i hope a fanatic -- and, btw, Kittenz was 16 last month, is doing great, and sends his regards to his COG friends.) Talk to a couple of them, particularly ones who don't follow politics, and tell them the 'dog on the car roof' story, and ask them if, whatever else they knew about the person who did that and his opinions, they could possibly vote for someone like that. You'll get a lot of 'nos' I assure you. (And remember that the redneck part of his base sure do love their dogs. Some of them might treat them as badly, but most don't, and don't like someone who would.)

All these, individually, would be minor, but the constant, cumulative effect of the successive revealations, from Swiss bank accounts to bullying, from the NASCAR comments and the like (Remember when he tried to get the band ALABAMA to sing "Sweet Home Alabama"?) all without a single positive humanizing trait are going to result in a level of 'voter suppression' that will be a lot stronger than even the supposed 'viceral hatred of Obama.'

Okay, this might cut his vote by a percentage point or two -- and again, the effect is likely to be heavier in his base states. But then throw in the religious factor, the Christians who could no more vote for a Mormon than for a Muslim -- whether they think Obama is one or not -- and you have more people staying home.

Then think of the 'Traditional Republicans' -- a term I began using at Benen's to mean "People whose first instinct is to vote Republican, not because they know or necessarily care about any issues, but simply because they 'always have.'" These people are, I'd argue, more likely than not to be a few steps to the left of their current representative -- but probably fdon't pay enough attention to realize it. And a lot of them are women, and the "Republican War on Women" and Romney's support of it is going to finally break through their ignorance.

Oh, and one more thing that has just popped up is the connection Romney has, and the funding from mainstream marketers -- a group that specifically plagues -- of all people -- Mormons. Again, a lot of people are still nursing financial wounds from being caught in this sort of scheme. And then there's "marijuana is a gateway drug, it shouldn't be legal even for medicinal purposes" which is not going to gain him support from the many Republican smokers out there. (Take a look at the vote in reddish-purple states like Nevada, Alaska and even Arizona. all which legalized it.) And what percent of the Paul support -- other than the hardcore crazies -- comes from his drug policy.

Remember how many analyses from Hofstader on have shown the Right to come from a politicization of a generalized resentment of and disasstisfaction with a person's life, and the desire to 'find someone to blame.' This can work nicely, and has, certainly from McCarthy on. But if the voters see the candidate as hmself emblematic of the people they want to blame -- not the rich, per se, but maybe the arrogant rich, or just the people who have looked down on him -- it might be much less effective.

But the real political news in the story comes from what didn't happen, and tha deserves a post of its own -- hope I can get it finished before the hockey ends. If not, maybe later tonight.

[KN]

So essentially Prup, what you are saying is that Rmoney epitomizes everything that the class war is all about? If so that is self evidently true. Though I agree with every point you have made here, I think that the true critical factor respecting Rmoney is that literally, no one likes him except other LDSers.

I don't know how the mentality works so I can't make any useful predictions concerning what effect that will have in November but I can at least hope that it will dampen the enthusiasm of the RWNJ constituency to the extent that all their election stealing efforts will be effectively negated by people who just don't bother to vote.

Overly simplistic and entirely ad hoc but nevertheless I think a fairly accurate prognostication. If true, it will have a large effect on the down ballot results as well. This is the thing we must work to make happen. Get the progressive base fired up to not only hang on but kick the bums out, particularly the reactionary radicals who lied their way into office promising all kinds of pie in the sky stuff that would make everyone happy and instead have worked like beavers to make everything worse.

This thread appears to be moribund now so I do not expect any reply.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

KN: The antagonism Romney causes comes from the whole class war thing in great part, but there are other factors. The animal lovers thing isn't a class war issue, and the lying and flip-flopping are entirely separate -- again, not speaking politically but personally. And the Plastic Man image, that doesn't need a fancy suit to wear, we've all run into that type in jeans, at concerts, etc. But the overlay of rich preppie is a major part of it.

That Preppie thing, though, has one more facet, and that is a subtle intensification of the reaction from women, and they don't have to be at all progressive or feminist to feel this. I'll ask the women here -- and maybe a survey of wives, close friends, etc., if they would leave a drink uncovered if the young Mitt Romney were at a party with them. I think a lot of women, at least subconsciously, have a justifiable fear of 'date-rape drugs' and at least the cliche of the guy who uses them is always just the sort of Preppie Romney was.

I've been arguing the importance of the 'stay home' group for months. It's a cumulative thing, as more and more attacks hit home on him, and as he continues to blunder his way forward. Not only will people be staying home, but the GOTV effort for other people will slowly weaken.

Yes, this will help candidates down the ballot, but we have to be careful not to forget how likely it is that Obama will not reach out and be a strong, partisan force helping them. (I wil withdraw this the first time I see an Obama poster or ad that includes the words "Democrat" or "Democratic Party" on it.) Fortunately, this time qwe have a number of good Candidates in Senate races that may work 'up the chain' as well -- such as Dr. richard Carmona in Arizona -- solid against a verious weak Republican, Jeff Flake -- and Shelley Berkely in Nevada.

I wish we had more and better candidates for the House, but I'll take a simple majority and worry about maybe a push against the crazies that democrats aren't willing to take on for the next election.

But Romney has peaked. From here on he can only lose votes, and votes from both ends of the spectrum. He's vulnerable, he was hurt even by the remarkably underfunded and unpopular Santorum and Gingrich. He'll be helpless against what the Obama campaign can and will throw against him.

But what about the 'pivot to the center?' Won't happen, won't do any good if it does, but I'll move that discussion to the Sunday thread, which is the one that seems moribund.

[KN]

Prup, I agree with all you say, I just have a slight sense that it is somewhat too hopeful. For one thing in 2008 nobody was fooled by the republican schtick and they knew well in advance they didn't stand a chance. But 2010 has given them the (hopefully) false confidence to think that they have a real shot to unseat Obama take the Senate and widen their majority in the house. So the money boys are turning their pockets inside out to make it happen. I hope they buy a whole heapin' helpin' of nuthin but air.

BUT - people are hurting, and gullible. Moreover they don't go out of their way to understand why they are hurting, who is hurting them and what they should do about it. Against a clown like Rmoney Obama should win ni a walk but it might actually be close. The down ticket issue is much more concerning. Argueably? if the Dems had put as much effort into the congressional races and particularly the Senate races in 2008 we would be looking at a very different situation. I am, for example disturbed by the many statements I have seen by so called progressives that Obama "had solid majorities in both houses" when in fact he never had a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate, hence no majority at all. Toss in the blue dogs to that mix and you got nothing.

On top of the issues already mentioned there is clearly a strong bias in the MSM WRT reporting versus stenography and sensationalistic pandering. So Obama and the down ticket dems are not going to catch a break in that department. I could be tempted to give advice, but what the hell do I know?

It is going to be an epic fight, the thugs have a whole lot to lose if they don't come out on top in this. On the other hand, the rest of us, the 99% have way more to lose if they do so we should make an effort to move things off the anchor point of mediocre voter turn out and instead of giving the RWNJ a good swift kick in the ass, give them a good swift kick in the teeth.

I wouldn't want to be in Obama's shoes trying to solve the calculus of how to fire up the great mass of apathetic voters - but he seems to have some ability in that department, so I willingly defer to him.

[Paula B]

Re:#SSM
What is a man? What is a woman? Hint: This is a trick question.
Read this and then, if you live in NC, call your state legislators and ask them them same questions.