You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 02, 2016, 08:46:31 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Thank you, Mr. President  (Read 6062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #50 on: May 11, 2012, 12:14:59 AM »
Holy shit this moved off the national radar quick, at least according to the small portion of the media that I pay attention to.  Is this good news, meaning that nobody cares what Obama thinks, because the whole planet is already accepting of the notion of gay marriage?  I wish I could be convinced of that interpretation of events, but I'm too cynical to believe it.  Also I'm living right now on the border of the American South, and this is definitely not a place that is accepting of the notion of gay marriage.

Chris Brady, all I can say is, the way the story has developed seems to bear out your interpretation of events and to directly contradict mine.  I thought this was big news, but today it looks like I was wrong.  That actually bums me out, frankly.  Oh well.  *sullenly chomps his humble pie*

Don't worry.. it will get hauled up.. I'd say you'll see it a LOT after the party national conventions.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #51 on: May 11, 2012, 12:36:43 AM »
Oh, I'm pretty sure it will.  The question is, though, will they be blaming Barack Obama for it, or Joe Biden?  Mr. Biden is the one who opened the can of worms first.  Sadly, though the VP rarely gets the limelight.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #52 on: May 11, 2012, 12:41:33 AM »
Oh, I'm pretty sure it will.  The question is, though, will they be blaming Barack Obama for it, or Joe Biden?  Mr. Biden is the one who opened the can of worms first.  Sadly, though the VP rarely gets the limelight.

I've always felt that Biden was closely monitored and watched by his 'minders' and this tells me someone went for coffee at the wrong moment. He's not Dan Qayle but it is easy to say that he needed someone to screen what he says from time to time.

Offline rick957

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #53 on: May 11, 2012, 12:55:42 AM »
NPR (my primary news source, personally) claims that no less than 39 out of the 50 American states have some kind of ban on gay marriage.  They also acknowledge that more than half of the American public, according to polls, support gay marriage.  Giant contradiction there?  Yep!  No explanation, that I've heard, yet, for that.

FYI according to NPR, Biden's public statement in support of gay marriage is the sole reason Obama chose to affirm the same.  And they report all this as if Obama and his people had no fucking idea that Biden was going to come out in support of gay marriage in the way he did.  How fucked up is that?

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #54 on: May 11, 2012, 01:41:48 AM »
NPR (my primary news source, personally) claims that no less than 39 out of the 50 American states have some kind of ban on gay marriage.  They also acknowledge that more than half of the American public, according to polls, support gay marriage.  Giant contradiction there?  Yep!  No explanation, that I've heard, yet, for that.

Another indication that what our voter participation is like.

I was for ANY form of union and/or marriage that gave all couples some legal standing. I remember the case of the lesbian couple that were on a cruise with their kids (from one of the moms) but had to go ashore because one of them was suffering from something life threatening. The poor woman died alone.. because according to the state they were in..their union wasn't recognized and the spouse had no standing to see her own spouse.

The poor woman died in pain.. alone. They wouldn't even let her kids say good bye. Because it wasn't legal'.


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7633058&page=1#.T6y0z799kpI
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 01:43:15 AM by Callie Del Noire »

Offline rick957

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #55 on: May 11, 2012, 02:33:09 AM »
Quote
The poor woman died in pain.. alone. They wouldn't even let her kids say good bye. Because it wasn't legal'.

Thanks for the link to the story.  This is such a fucking nightmare.  From the linked article, it sounds like the problems in this particular situation arose not only due to the lesbian relationship but also due to the fact that there was no marriage or civil union in place (possibly due to the state's laws prohibiting those things).  Regardless, this is a great example of why this can be such an important issue, and why it's so hard to justify taking a stance in opposition of gay marriage.

That said, there are conscionable people who are opposed to gay marriage, and I would personally love to understand their positions better, in case anyone out there wants to speak up.  I hope this is a place where such people can express their views frankly without being attacked in any inappropriate way, although obviously there will be some who may want to challenge those people's opinions.  Personally I want to understand the moral justification that many people claim in denouncing all gay marriages and civil unions and visitation rights in cases of illness; it seems so inhumane, so unforgivable to some of us, yet it makes sense to other people, and like it or not, those people live side by side with us and get an equal vote. 

Anyway, just sayin'.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 02:34:53 AM by rick957 »

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #56 on: May 11, 2012, 07:39:46 AM »
From what I know about fights against interracial marriage - which is the closest and most obvious comparison, legally - there was a similar pattern. It was considered unnatural and wrong, and there was a spate of legislation against it even while public opinion supported it. I know I personally believe that the dam will break and it's only a matter of time, but it can be frustrating, waiting for that turning point. That's not to say that I (and others) are passively waiting for things to turn around. It remains a subject on which there are several challenges and fights in progress both in the courts and socially. However, I really do think it's only a matter of time.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #57 on: May 11, 2012, 08:18:36 AM »
Yes, if Obama sticks to his guns on this one - and he is going to have to - well, after the Republican convention has been around this is going to be very present in the campaign. It's a dead sure rallying cry issue, and it's going to raise as much ire as it would in Britain if David Cameron had promised to disband MI6 because he thought they were an uncontrollable and unprofessional gang of deluded spooks.

And with four out of five U.S. states having bans on same-sex marriage (some of them constitutional bans?), this is going to be a long and very vocal haul even if there is an opening up on the federal level. Just like abortions, it's an issue very many people feel passionately about and which is seen as connecting the private and the political. In the long run, as Trieste was on to, LGBT marriage is likely to become legal in most U.S. states but that's going to be a long and rocky road.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 08:38:55 AM by gaggedLouise »

Offline EbbTopic starter

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #58 on: May 11, 2012, 08:36:58 AM »
NPR (my primary news source, personally) claims that no less than 39 out of the 50 American states have some kind of ban on gay marriage.  They also acknowledge that more than half of the American public, according to polls, support gay marriage.  Giant contradiction there?  Yep!  No explanation, that I've heard, yet, for that.

I don't find this particularly surprising. The United States population isn't evenly divided among the states. 50% of the population is concentrated in only ten states, so when you look at things like "the number of states who do X", it tends not to be be representative of the popular opinion. It's also why the Senate is so skewed -- huge states like California (with 37 million people) have two senators, just like tiny states like Wyoming (600,000). More to the point, the more populous states tend to skew Blue/liberal, with Texas being a notable exception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population


Offline Dragondancer

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #59 on: May 11, 2012, 09:32:38 AM »
That's where the House of Representatives comes in. *smiles*  But yeah, good points there about popular vote vs. representative vote, and concentrations of population.  :-)

The main issue is of course, as Callie mentioned, who actually shows up to vote. People may say they are "for" something in theory, but then not actually bother to show up at the polls. That's why the issues of gay marriage and abortion are always brought up again and again at election time (among other polarizing issues like gun rights, etc.). To mobilize the apathetic voters by giving them a sense of urgent purpose to protect and defend the America they hold dear.  Whichever side of the issues that represents to each individual.

Offline Sasquatch421

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #60 on: May 11, 2012, 11:05:50 AM »
It's pure election ploy... Due to things Obama has done and said before like getting rid of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and comments about gay rights I figured he supported gay marrige long ago. That could be the reason the issue went by so quick, because he was only comfirming what most people had figured out.

I think the biggest problem for gay rights will always be the older generation which have been raised as strict catholics or lutherans or whatever. They were raised in a time where they were taught that somethings just weren't right or a down right sin.

As time goes on and the younger generations start to replace the older in office I beleive we will see more changes since we are more open then the older generations will ever be...

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #61 on: May 11, 2012, 12:06:44 PM »
Thanks for the link to the story.  This is such a fucking nightmare.  From the linked article, it sounds like the problems in this particular situation arose not only due to the lesbian relationship but also due to the fact that there was no marriage or civil union in place (possibly due to the state's laws prohibiting those things).  Regardless, this is a great example of why this can be such an important issue, and why it's so hard to justify taking a stance in opposition of gay marriage.


Actually they were a civil union, I think. The problem was they were out of state and Florida doesn't recognize them or the couple's power of attorney that they set up. The hospital could have easily recognized the latter but for whatever reasons didn't. 

Offline rick957

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #62 on: May 11, 2012, 03:50:46 PM »
I don't find this particularly surprising. The United States population isn't evenly divided among the states. 50% of the population is concentrated in only ten states, so when you look at things like "the number of states who do X", it tends not to be be representative of the popular opinion. It's also why the Senate is so skewed -- huge states like California (with 37 million people) have two senators, just like tiny states like Wyoming (600,000). More to the point, the more populous states tend to skew Blue/liberal, with Texas being a notable exception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

Oh yeah, duh.  Shoulda figured that out myself.  Thanks for pointing this out.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #63 on: May 11, 2012, 04:29:53 PM »
That's where the House of Representatives comes in. *smiles*  But yeah, good points there about popular vote vs. representative vote, and concentrations of population.  :-)

The main issue is of course, as Callie mentioned, who actually shows up to vote. People may say they are "for" something in theory, but then not actually bother to show up at the polls. That's why the issues of gay marriage and abortion are always brought up again and again at election time (among other polarizing issues like gun rights, etc.). To mobilize the apathetic voters by giving them a sense of urgent purpose to protect and defend the America they hold dear.  Whichever side of the issues that represents to each individual.

Remember for most of the last Forty years only about 1/2 of the people who are eligible to vote bother to register.. so you're typically looking between 1/3 to 1/4 of the actually voting populace participates in the actual elections in any given cycle. It's gotten better but one or two cycles don't count in my mind.. the '10 election and the Tea Party surge tells me the moderate vote that put the president in office didn't follow up on the push for a more moderate congress. They simply sat back and let things go by.

Offline Caela

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #64 on: May 11, 2012, 06:34:38 PM »
Actually they were a civil union, I think. The problem was they were out of state and Florida doesn't recognize them or the couple's power of attorney that they set up. The hospital could have easily recognized the latter but for whatever reasons didn't.

Some of that may depend on how the Florida law is written. For example, the NC constitutional amendment says specifically that it won't recognize any union of anything but a straight married couple and that anything that approximates those rights will not be legally recognized either, making a gay/lebian/or even straight UNMARRIED couples POA's ignorable.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 06:37:46 PM by Caela »

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #65 on: May 11, 2012, 07:46:51 PM »
Some of that may depend on how the Florida law is written. For example, the NC constitutional amendment says specifically that it won't recognize any union of anything but a straight married couple and that anything that approximates those rights will not be legally recognized either, making a gay/lebian/or even straight UNMARRIED couples POA's ignorable.

Exactly.. which is why I'm saddened by the atrociity my home state just passed this week. It does nothing be ensure that pain and suffering folllows in it's wake.. and the Governor Liv 'I rule by popularity poll outcomes' Purdue will make it almost a dead certainty that things will only get worse.

Offline AndyZ

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #66 on: May 12, 2012, 02:14:27 AM »
Well, nobody answered my question, so I did some research on it on my own.

http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-obamas-bullshit-gay-marriage-announcement?tag=civil-rights

Apparently it's purely what he's saying his own personal beliefs are, and that it remains a states' rights issue.

Is he going to actually change anything?  Nope.  It just becomes a question of what the candidate personally believes, not a question of what he's actually going to do.  Personally, I only care about the actions that politicians will take, not the words.

Offline Caela

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #67 on: May 12, 2012, 06:15:37 AM »
Exactly.. which is why I'm saddened by the atrociity my home state just passed this week. It does nothing be ensure that pain and suffering folllows in it's wake.. and the Governor Liv 'I rule by popularity poll outcomes' Purdue will make it almost a dead certainty that things will only get worse.

I am ashamed of the fact that my own state has similar statues on the books as NC. It blows my mind that so many people are willing to cast votes against something that has no effect on them whatsoever! Someone else getting married canNOT devalue their own marriage in any way...only THEY can do that!

Well, nobody answered my question, so I did some research on it on my own.

http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-obamas-bullshit-gay-marriage-announcement?tag=civil-rights

Apparently it's purely what he's saying his own personal beliefs are, and that it remains a states' rights issue.

Is he going to actually change anything?  Nope.  It just becomes a question of what the candidate personally believes, not a question of what he's actually going to do.  Personally, I only care about the actions that politicians will take, not the words.

lol Andy, you can never trust a politicians words unless they back them up with a voting record to match!

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #68 on: May 12, 2012, 02:18:42 PM »
Is he going to actually change anything?  Nope.  It just becomes a question of what the candidate personally believes, not a question of what he's actually going to do.  Personally, I only care about the actions that politicians will take, not the words.

But that's just it. Politicians, the people you SEE, don't do anything.  At all.  All they do is get elected, and get a paycheck.  Oh, and maybe spend time in front of a camera.

That's pretty much what the job entails.  How else could ACTORS get the job??

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #69 on: May 12, 2012, 02:27:29 PM »
Wow, uh, thanks a lot. Not all actors are shallow assholes, and the most successful actors I know are quite smart. They also tend to be passionate, well-spoken people, many of whom are accustomed to doing research about things - whether it's for a part or for a bill, it doesn't matter, you still have to pay attention to detail.

In my opinion, people who go into politics from other pursuits (yes, even acting) are preferable to the career politicians any day.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #70 on: May 12, 2012, 03:59:25 PM »
Quote from: AndyZ
Is he going to actually change anything?  Nope.  It just becomes a question of what the candidate personally believes, not a question of what he's actually going to do.  Personally, I only care about the actions that politicians will take, not the words.

     There's often a share of action, a share of extra rhetoric, and a certain mix of bureaucratic evolution-drift.  There is also some portion where the bureaucracy itself must respond to changes in the society, and the executive may or may not accept that.  As for changing "anything": The president has contributed to the national debate, and that forces other politicians to treat the issue somewhat more seriously.  It also makes some difference what federal agencies do.  The administration does not enforce DOMA.  It has very recently allowed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to put protection on the basis of gender presentation, on the books. 

     In my opinion and that of many LGBTQ, it would be great to have an executive order -- if not a law, but something -- that provides firm protection on the basis of orientation.  So it's unfortunate that there has been a lot of neglect/procrastination on that point.  Being adventurous, I would have liked to see the issue forced more to the front early in his administration -- but many people say that would have been bad strategy in the rigid institutions we have. 

    So if you are really set on blaming Obama or his administration for something:  Then, blame them for not first challenging the arbitrary numbers required to override a Senate veto, and then (assuming they succeeded) pushing forward with stronger economic stimulus, gay marriage, and other things.  All while dealing with the inherited economic morass and btw, pursuing health care policy.  I actually want to say I would have at least tried to push through all that if it were me in the big chair...  But even without knowing all the Washington process, I can see how people believe it was technically impossible. 

      It is hardly Obama's sole "fault" that the society still relegates the marriage issue to the state level.  Regardless of whether or not one believes even the first Congress of his administration would have voted in legislation to back gay marriage...  Let's suppose that either Congressional legislation or the Executive put forth rules supporting gay marriage as a national good.  If in a legal challenge, the Supreme Court did not uphold that, then Obama might have to pull a contemporary Andrew Jackson, and struggle through a Constitutional crisis.  Even if he did so, the tension would be great, certain areas might not accept the ruling without deployment of federal security units, and a subsequent administration could declare the whole business illegal. Should Obama have at least tried, perhaps so we could blame it squarely on the Congress or the Court?  Perhaps.  I kind of want to say yes.  But plenty of LGBTQ organizations have faced similar dilemmas in setting strategy.

     As for the actor who comes first to my mind, Reagan:  His administration took plenty of action and/or inaction (whichever you prefer to call it), and contributed somewhat to income inequality and dramatically to wealth inequality.  Was that more decisive?  I don't know, but the outcome was not what I might have preferred.
 
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 04:04:19 PM by kylie »

Offline AndyZ

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #71 on: May 13, 2012, 12:39:18 AM »
lol Andy, you can never trust a politicians words unless they back them up with a voting record to match!

See, I'd have more faith in Obama if he presented a law even knowing it'd be shut down.

[quote author=http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/05/vice-president-joe-biden-says-comfortable-with-gay-marriage-but-won-promise-endorsement-obama-administration/7L8FjHlNMmMNVw4DUi4j0J/story.html]
 “Look [at] the executive orders he’s put in place. Any hospital that gets federal funding, which is almost all of them, they can’t deny a partner from being able to have access to their partner who’s ill.
[/quote]

Now, I realize you can't truly know what a politician will do until they're in office.  However, I'll agree with Gawker that if it was more than just talk, there are things he'd actually do.

In my opinion, people who go into politics from other pursuits (yes, even acting) are preferable to the career politicians any day.

Just wanted to +1 this.

    So if you are really set on blaming Obama or his administration for something:  Then, blame them for not first challenging the arbitrary numbers required to override a Senate veto, and then (assuming they succeeded) pushing forward with stronger economic stimulus, gay marriage, and other things.  All while dealing with the inherited economic morass and btw, pursuing health care policy.  I actually want to say I would have at least tried to push through all that if it were me in the big chair...  But even without knowing all the Washington process, I can see how people believe it was technically impossible. 

I actually prefer to blame Obama for what he did while there were enough Democrats to override a Senate veto.

You can blame the Republicans all you want (crap knows I do), but when there's a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate, and things get even worse, it's harder to keep claiming unilateral blame.

I still don't understand: just what is it that people think Bush did that caused the Great Recession?  I'm not going to argue he was a boob, but things have gotten so much worse in spite of (or because of) Obama's various actions since his election that the subsequent Republican elections have been landslides.  Is the claim simply that they didn't know how bad things were even though they claim that they can micromanage everything?

P.S.  If I can get a copy PMed of the picture for your avatar, that'd be awesome.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #72 on: May 13, 2012, 02:12:05 AM »
Quote from: AndyZ
     I actually prefer to blame Obama for what he did while there were enough Democrats to override a Senate veto.  You can blame the Republicans all you want (crap knows I do), but when there's a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate, and things get even worse, it's harder to keep claiming unilateral blame.

     As I recall, it seemed doubtful that the Democrats would have voted as a bloc on the issue.  It's a bit much to blame Obama alone for that, too.  Pick on the figurehead a little for not pushing every issue and living up to the campaign, sure.  I'm tempted to do so there, as well.  But I can also understand the calculations.  I don't see how you can reasonably blame him personally for the state of the society he's living in. 

Quote
I still don't understand: just what is it that people think Bush did that caused the Great Recession?

     There are other threads full of this.  For now, I simply dispute the notion that someone being an actor, or not, is obviously a good precedent.  You don't have to agree with me, but it's hardly thorough to vaguely claim that an actor was somehow obviously better.  To stay on topic, then: Reagan was previously an actor, yet he apparently wasn't pushing toward gay marriage either.  That is, if you even want anyone pushing that way.  I sort of wonder if you're more concerned with finding any slightest excuse to pick on Obama as a symbolic figure, than with actual questions of gay rights.  EDIT:  And I'm sorry if I'm mixing you up with some of the other preceding stuff, on that point.  I just wonder.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 02:28:43 AM by kylie »

Offline AndyZ

Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #73 on: May 13, 2012, 09:25:38 AM »
Yeah, all the actor and Reagan stuff was sarcasm from other folks to try to deflect my point.  It's okay, though; I've goofed on posts too.

I was the one making the point that Obama can talk about what he wants to do, just like he talks about wanting to close Gitmo, have a transparent administration, have equal pay between genders, and so on.  If he's happy leaving it as a states' rights issue, though, does it really matter what he thinks?  Should we believe him when he flops around on the issue as soon as he ramps up his fundraising attempts, or is it more likely that he's just all talk?

My actual views on marriage have been put on other threads, but since I doubt you've seen them, I'll repeat: I don't think the government should be involved in marriage whatsoever.  If there's some reason that the government needs to be so very involved in my life, I would appreciate to know.

Edit: In case it needs expressly stated, Obama is not by any means the only politician who's full of crap.  He's just the only one mentioned (by title) in the original post.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 09:26:44 AM by AndyZ »

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Thank you, Mr. President
« Reply #74 on: May 13, 2012, 12:56:05 PM »
Quote from: AndyZ
I was the one making the point that Obama can talk about what he wants to do, just like he talks about wanting to close Gitmo, have a transparent administration, have equal pay between genders, and so on.  If he's happy leaving it as a states' rights issue, though, does it really matter what he thinks?  Should we believe him when he flops around on the issue as soon as he ramps up his fundraising attempts, or is it more likely that he's just all talk?

     It may be due to the campaign coming up, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a cold-hearted plan by Obama or the campaign.  At the least, that does not show that marketing was the only calculation involved, even if it were a factor.  During campaign season, you get lots of people running around poking for new answers about various issues.  It's also possible that the administration wants to change policy but believes the results would be worse than acting more incrementally.  The line between good marketing in this case (given that public opinion is moving toward support for gay marriage overall) and honest argument is blurry. 

    I actually agree the administration should try harder.  I've said so elsewhere, and I've been pretty critical on that point.  I would actually prefer the government offered the same benefits to everyone, and not just couples or married people.  That said, if we're not going to dispose of privileges based upon marriage period, then I'll take sponsorship of same-sex marriage as a start.  People can't seem to stop drawing boundaries around households/communities, and for too long the legal fences have been designed in this society to keep same-sex relationships hidden or restricted. 

     Regardless, I still wouldn't go so far as to call it "all talk."  Maybe it's the specific words, but that implies to me that you think they're being dishonest or making no impact at all.  To me, that can come across rather like saying:  No one noticed or changed because Obama is a Black president.  Things certainly haven't changed enough or as fast as I might wish, but I do think there is an impact.

    It doesn't change current national marriage policy, if that is all you mean.  It may not change the popular opinions of the issue overnight.  But it has some real impact on how the debate flows.  More people feel they have to answer the question, to begin with.  Politicians may find that more organizations are officially rating them on this issue than before.  It becomes that much clearer how federal agencies may and may not act under Obama's watch, on areas that are not formal law but they play a part in setting real precedent on related issues.  Foreign leaders may take the US a little more seriously when it comes to the question of aid money or in certain areas, intervention or human rights prosecutions possibly being tied (at least in part) to gay rights.       

     By the way, but..  Personally, I don't care much for the term "flop" (or flip-flop) as it seems to imply there's no principle or logic behind anything.  It's acoustically (implies the sound of lightweight objects) and socially (used much more readily in bars than in reports or policy documents) a cheap shot sort of term to me.  We can and do have lots of contradictory statements, even action, without necessarily having empty heads in office.  I also associate the term historically with its specific origins: the Republicans campaigning v. Kerry, which is when I believe it stuck in the public lexicon.  And when I think of that campaign too much it gets even worse, because then I extend the term to association with things like the Swift Boat group which seem rather crude and distasteful to me.

     Thanks for the rest, though.  I wasn't going to pick through every post to try to figure out the whole history of the exchange about Reagan, etc.  It just all felt off to me.