Just finished the chapter on faith in Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream and found it to be the best so far. Here, he presents a largely sympathetic portrait of the rise of social conservatives, reserving most of his criticism for Alan Keyes, his self-righteous 2004 rival for Illinois’ US Senate seat.
He even faulted one of his core constituencies (“academics, journalists, and purveyors of popular culture”) for failing to appreciate “the continuing role that all manner of religious expression played in communities across the country.”
That appreciation might upset some of his secular supporters in those constituencies as well as in the gay community.  As I read further in the chapter, I wondered if gay activists would call him heterosexist for his failure to embrace equality in his book (even though he has in his rhetoric):
I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex . . . .
Emphasis added. Â Equivalent not equal?
Will the heads of gay organizations call him to account for this language? Have they?
Also note that while he says later that he opposes same-sex marriage, he is quite mealy-mouthed in defining that “special place” carved out for traditional marriage. On gay marriage, he seems to want to have it both ways. As I’ve previously observed.
But, have his gay supporters taken note? Â Or do they care so long as he is the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee?
virtually equal works for me.
Even the Gay Left bloggers like Andy Towle have noted that Barry’s now laying the groundwork to wiggle-out of getting rid of DADT. He’s gone from promising to end DADT, to “working” to end DADT, now it’s he’ll lay the groundwork to “discuss” DADT with the Congress and the Joint Chiefs.
And from my perspective, he’s never been much of a champion of gay rights, nor of “gay marriage”, from the very beginning….just lot’s of promises that pushed the correct buttons for the G/L Dhimmicratic ATMs to continue to pour money into his coffers…without demanding any accountability.
Nah. They’ll circle the wagons around Comrade Obama and defend him to the death. When the sh*t hits the fan, they’re liberals first and foremost.
I have to agree that the wagons will be circled…the same thing happened with Bill Clinton. He was responsible for DADT and signing Defense of Marriage, and still he and Hillary were some how supporters of gay rights. I never figured that out, and when I pointed the contradiction out to liberal gay folks, I got the standard, “Republicans want to put gays in concentration camps” retort.
#1: BULLSH*T.
Yep, because McCain and Palin are all for same sex marriage. Throwing rocks from the windows of your glass house is so much fun.
burying xyzzy in some sand, up to the neck and tellling an Imam that xyzzy raped his mother and 145 sisters.
Watching xyzzy get ripped to shreds is more fun
2 + 2 = 6. Yay for Vince P mathematics!
So the answer is no, they don’t care as long as there’s a D after his name.
Thank you michael, xyssy for proving Dan correct, again
Perhaps Mr. Obama, Rev. Jackson, and Rev Wright will ‘settle’ for “equivalent rights” for people of color.
At least with Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin I know exactly where they stand on gay issues. With Mr. Obama and Mr…. (I forgot his name), they lie to you while taking your money.
“So the answer is no, they don’t care as long as there’s a D after his name.”
Incorrect. I would vote for a Republican if they had views more similar to my own than a Democrat candidate. However in this instance I support neither Obama or McCain fully, but Obama is at least making an effort to meet my values and needs half way. The same cannot be said of McCain.
You chastise Obama for supporting civil unions. But what’s the alternative? A couple of neocons who would like to see same-sex marriage banned constitutionally. Really, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater the best approach to take? I would have thought that some rights > no rights at all.
This idiot thinks neocons are against gay marriage.
lol
Once again Vince, you’re reading things that aren’t there. Maybe you should see a doctor about that.
“A couple of neocons who would like to see same-sex marriage banned constitutionally.” – your other persona wrote that perhaps? Seems Vince pegged your position pretty clearly.
And DOMA is a -reaction- to judges redefining terms to support their agenda. The Consitution is quiet on the matter, thus leaving it to the states to decide. Not the states’ courts to go “Look, we’re going to quote phrase a, text b and penumbra c to redefine it as we see fit.”
Livewire: good message!