No wonder President Obama is so supportive of evolution, he finds it essential to explain both scientific and political developments. Faced with Vice President Joe Biden’s moment of honesty in a weekend interview that he is “comfortable” with same-sex marriage, White House Spokesman Jay Carney appeared to have a brain aneurysm in trying to respond to questions about the President’s position on one of the most fundamental civil rights issues of our generation. Since Biden had clearly “evolved” into supporting same-sex marriage, the reporters wanted to know the status of the President’s long evolution. It appears that Australopithecus evolved faster that President Obama on this civil rights question because Carney kept repeating he is still “evolving” over and over again.
Dana Milbank had a great line that Biden had “the classic Washington gaffe of accidentally speaking the truth.” Obama’s position is now so completely dishonest and conflicted that reporters appeared to openly mock Carney.
Reporters asked why the president would not “stop dancing around the issue” and correctly called the president’s treatment of issue as “cynical.” NBC’s Chuck Todd noted, “So help me out here. He opposes bans on gay marriage, but he doesn’t yet support gay marriage?”
Carney was left mumbling nonsense and repeating that “He, as you know, said that his views on this were evolving” and “It is as it was.”
This farce culminated with Carney insisting “His views are crystal clear.”
I have long been critical of the lack of principles of Obama on civil liberties as well as some civil rights questions like same-sex marriage. Throughout his presidency, Obama has refused to fight on principle in these areas when it would cost him politically. Same-sex marriage represents one of the most contemptible examples. this is like remaining uncommitted on inter-racial marriage before the ruling in Loving v. Virginia. Obama has gone through the state legislature, the United States Senate, and virtually all of his first term without “evolving” to support gay and lesbian citizens on this basic right.
Source: Washington Post
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/gop-newsletter-calls-armed-revolution-if-obama-re-elected They say Obama “shuns bible praise.”
Don S, Don’t forget that Romney has a strong Mormon base. He contributed heavily to Prop 8 through the Mormon church.
And whoever mentioned fear of alienating the black church, I think it was SM, was correct. Except that if the black church is “divided” on the issue, the division must be like 80-20, or 90-10, or more. Especially among the older generation; especially among church women,who are the backbone of the church. And while they love Obama to death, and might still turn out the numbers, you don’t mess with these ladies. There are few issues that rile the black church more than sexuality. And of course they are still the element of the base that Obama can and is counting on.
@Bettykath. I know it is a legal. My point is that we need to call it that, and stop confusing it with the sacrament/rite/service of the church. They are 2 different things with 2 different meanings and we should acknowledge the separate meanings. Some older couples do not want the legal contract for financial reasons, but do want what the church means by marriage. I think if we separated the 2 meanings we could go a long way to ensuring equal rights without stepping on religious toes.
I agree with both Rafflaw and OS. It’s just hard for all those folks who believed in the ‘hopey’ thing to recognize their man is both a crass politician and “not there yet” on gay marriage. Thing is, the crass pol wants to have it both ways on this issue. Again.
Disenfranchisement of a very wealthy group of people is never a good ideal……
Hi Gene,
Lets test the “number of links” hypothesis. That had occurred to me too 🙂
***
Maybe the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and ONLY give out civil unions.
Obama may try to get some “civil rights points” among queers for ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but I think that move was the result of a less ideological calculation: the armed forces were stretched too thin.
1) At the height of Bush’s wars, about 1/4 of the troops fighting were reservists or guardsmen:
“The ‘One weekend a month, two weeks a year’ slogan has lost most of its relevance since the Iraq War, when nearly 28% of total US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan at the end of 2007 consisted of mobilized personnel of the National Guard and other Reserve components”
source: wikipedia
2) Bush reduced enlistment requirements multiple times and still had trouble meeting quotas
“Almost nobody in the media is aware of the vast investment the U.S. military has made over the last 88 years in IQ testing of potential recruits, and the huge number of correlation studies they have done comparing soldiers’ IQ with their actual performance”
source and analysis: parapundit
“The Army has a recruiting shortfall of 6,000 to 8,000 soldiers over the past 12 months. It hasn’t fallen so short of its annual goal since 1979, several years after the Vietnam war…Cody said that increasing the number of people with General Education Diplomas allowed to enlist in the Army wasn’t really a lowering of standards. GEDs are certificates granted in lieu of high school diplomas to dropouts who can pass an examination.”
source: knight-ridder release
“The army has been criticised in recent years for failing to meet its own targets for troop quality. Only 79% of new recruits have graduated from high school, short of the 90% target.”
source: bbc
Along with lowering standards, the armed forces also gave out “morality waivers” allowing criminals to serve:
“824 felons were allowed to sign up in 2004 as opposed to 1,605 in 2006 under the moral waivers scheme.”
source: bbc
“Increasing use of moral waivers has implications for killing of noncombatants: John D. Hutson, dean and president of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in New Hampshire and former judge advocate general of the Navy, said the military must tread carefully in deciding which criminals to accept. He says that there is a reason why allowing people with criminal histories into the military has long been the exception rather than the rule, and
‘If you are recruiting somebody who has demonstrated some sort of antisocial behavior and then you are a putting a gun in their hands, you have to be awfully careful about what you are doing. You are not putting a hammer in their hands, or asking them to sell used cars. You are potentially asking them to kill people.[8]‘”
source: wikipedia
3) The stop-loss policy strong armed members into re-enlisting for extended tours. This was not a sustainable policy.
The guy who murdered all those Afghan civilians back in March was on his FOURTH tour.
Obama HAD to end “don’t ask don’t tell” because he couldn’t afford to alienate ANY potential recruits.
There is an old adage that says, “Failure to decide is a decision itself.”
Speaks volumes. ‘Nuff said.
Thanks Gene!
You didn’t understand my answer. Goodbye.
Naive question: “how can any person believe in discrimination of another group?”
Ignorant question: “how can a person of color believe in discrimination of another minority?”
You didn’t answer my question. Goodbye.
@ken1776
“How in the world can any person of color believe in discrimination against another minority?”
Most ignorant statement of the week….
Well, tell me, how can a person of color believe in discrimination of another minority?
Obama lost my vote because of this issue. How in the world can any person of color believe in discrimination against another minority?
Inigo Jones,
If it had more than two links, the comment automatically goes to moderation. Other than that, sometimes the spam filter gets tripped for no apparent reason (the settings have not been modified in any way and are the WordPress defaults).
well, that last comment went straight through. must be something automated…
have you been holding my comment for moderation all day because of my use of the word “queer,” or because my comment is too long winded for an otherwise simple statement?
“queer” is an acceptable colloquial term for the lgbt community that doesn’t involve a “homosexual” connotation. just thought i’d mention that in case my meaning was unclear. there is a bit of sarcasm, but not directed AGAINST the lgbt community…
Great link Swarthmore!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/no-comparison-between-obama-and-romney-on-same-sex-marriage/2012/05/07/gIQAVvsn8T_blog.html