The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Obama to extended some benefits to gay federal workers, but not full health benefits
Posts
Ass.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
How dare Obama not solve every problem instantly!!
/eyeroll
Pretty much. He's been all about the economy and health care from way back.
Yes, and some gay people are discontent that their rights are considered a second-tier issue.
But I guess we should just get to the back of the bus and wait our turn.
He's been in office for five months.
During a war.
Two wars.
And a banking system collapse.
Jesus tap-dancing christ.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's the kind of dedication that America was built upon.
I want gay marriage. I want benefits for gay spouses.
But you know what would be a lot better than medical care for the spouses of gay federal employees?
Medical care for everybody.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This.
Also, when did he compare gay marriage to pedophilia?
Of course, legal briefs are written with what you think will succeed, not what you think is eternal truth.
Link pls?
I remember something someone linked on DOMA or some such awhile back, but I remember nothing to do with pedophilia in it.
It is unclear that this is a zero-sum situation.
It's pretty close to.
I don't understand how you can believe that.
To make real progress on any of the gay issues he's going to need to push reluctant members of his party along. That's going to take an upswell of public sentiment. While he has shown some skill in creating that I think it's fairly obvious he can't do that on every topic simultaneously. He is currently focusing on Health Care, previously he was focusing on the Stimulus. Sotomayor is likely up after that.
While this can suck if it's you all of those other issues are also you plus a lot more yous than the first you.
I just hunted it down.
It does NOT compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia.
It uses Incest and Pedophilia as prior rulings saying that the states MAY declare who can or cannot get married by their own standards.
It makes no claim that gay marriage should be banned, it simply claims that DOMA by the books is allowable on the grounds that limiting who can be married is on the books, reference: evidence that states can declare who may or may not marry.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html
While it can be horrible to make the claim against civil rights, the logic being used is that right NOW, being gay isn't a civil right exactly, so banning the marriages is okay. They make that argument when trying to throw out prior case law of interracial marriages.
I think the brief is wrong and pretty horrible, but it's doing what it's supposed to: backing up a legal claim with prior case law.
The stimulus and shitty economy affects everyone in the country; gays and straights need this recession to be over. Gays and straights need wars to stop draining the national budget. Gays and straights need an affordable option for healthcare. These are huge issues, they need immediate attention, and the Pubs got the shit beaten out of them on these issues during the election so they can't kick up any new fuss about it now. Gay marriage is making progress without Obama's help, far more progress in the last few months than in the last 10 years.
But I am watching him very closely.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Sitting quietly and waiting, based on the assumption that the president is a good guy who will get around to you eventually, is a monumentally ineffective way to obtain your equal rights and dignity under the law.
Not saying it's fair, but it's a stupid fight to be picking right now.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I agree, if only people would get out there and try to change people's minds at the state level.
oh wait...
It's not a zero-sum situation. That's exactly my point. We're talking about extending health care to a demographic group that, any way you look at it, is incredibly tiny compared to the number of people across the country who have no health care at all (and is in fact by definition a subset of that group). If the administration succeeds in obtaining UHC but not health care benefits to SoGFE*, then SoGFE benefit anyway. However, the converse is not true - if SoGFE win, then the uninsured population of the US does not benefit. That's a pretty solid example of a non-zero-sum game.
* - Spouses of gay federal employees.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
They're spouses, even if the government stubbornly refuses to recognize their spousal status.
I refuse to ghettoize my language.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Did I say that they shouldn't?
It's appropriate for activists to exert pressure at all levels of government and social organization. Even if it is not the right time to act at this very moment, if we all sit quietly then there never will be a right time to act. It is pressure that forces the hand of change, not complacency or complicity.
What I meant when I said that it was not clearly a zero-sum situation was just the following: it is not clear that the government can't pursue both equal rights and dignity for the lgbt community and pursue universal access to health care at the same time. If it is possible to do both, then the immediate necessity of universal access to health care does not undermine the immediate necessity of equal rights and dignity for the lgbt community.
Furthermore, you are ignoring the non-material costs of living in a prejudiced society. It is not an accident that I speak of equal rights and dignity, for the two are inextricably linked. The rights that gay people lack are materially important, it's true--but as you point out, they are not necessarily the greatest issue of material importance confronting the government. However, the rights of gay people are also immaterially important, because of their cultural and symbolic significance. It is significantly more difficult for gay people to see themselves as full and equal members of a society if that society has codified their undesirability into its legal framework: they are deprived of their dignity. Dignity is a fundamental right, and although it is more difficult to measure, it is not less important than access to material resources. This point has been recognized in political philosophy at least as far back as John Rawls' massive contributions to the discipline.
This is one reason why I oppose civil unions that are substantially equivalent to marriage, or to the abandonment of marriage altogether in favor of civil unions. The battle over gay marriage is not just a battle over material access to health care, or power of attorney, or any of those things, though they are indubitably important in and of themselves. It is also a battle over social recognition, dignity, and the rights to full self-respect for gay Americans. This is part of the reason that the conservative religious community is so committed to the issue--they have very little to lose, materially, from the recognition of gay marriages, however, it would represent a rejection of their favored social order. Sometimes gay activists like to say that it is merely a struggle for legal rights, as a way of assuaging people's concerns, and that it is not also a battle over the moral conscience of the country. But that is a lie, because it is a battle over the moral conscience of the country, and it is a battle that must be won.
Furthermore, this is why I react very strongly to the suggestion that gay activists are behaving hysterically, or that although they are legitimate, their concerns are a side-issue at best. Because that carries an implicit suggestion that my dignity is not important, and that it cannot compare to whatever other quantifiable issues are at the forefront today. That is a lie, and it is a demeaning lie, no less demeaning for the fact that it is generally delivered by well-wishers and ostensible allies. And that is why I'm writing at such length--because I want people to understand what exactly is at stake, because I'll concede that it is not obvious on the face of it. If I were not myself gay, I doubt I would understand it as clearly as I do now.
...no, you said
Which seemed to suggest that that was the only alternative to demanding that the issue of gay marriage be put at the top of the priority list to the probable detriment of other pressing projects.
It's true, that comment was simplistic.
By any sensible utilitarian standard, gay marriage is a "side issue" when compared to the economy, healthcare, and the war in Iraq.
What that leaves us with, then, is the question of whether or not the federal government can address gay rights without undermining their efforts on other issues. Given that one of the Republican party's strongest strategies, year after year, has been to utilize social wedge issues to get people to vote against their own economic best interests; I would say that, yes, aggressive forward progress on a major social wedge issue right now would undermine progress on economic issues.
Nobody is saying that you should shut up and sit down and eat your porridge and like it. Absolutely continue to exert pressure on all levels of government and on the constituency. What I am saying is that outrage at the positive (though insufficient) actions of the current administration is a wholly undeserved response. Obama is not going to undo generations of prejudice within five months - Rome was not built in a day, and it certainly wasn't built in a day by somebody trying to build Athens and Alexandria at the same time all while fighting off barbarians in between.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Except it really isn't possible to do both at the same time.
Various left-wing demographics are already pissed that he's moving to slowly on or not addressing their issues. It isn't like it's just gay marriage advocates that have been told to take a seat. Obama has pots on every burner right now. He's logically going to spend his early energy on the big, potential-catastrophe, consensus issues first.
I understand that some are concerned that he's going to end up being too moderate on gay rights, but getting a gay marriage bill through congress right now would be like dipping your head in a shark tank.
I did not intend to claim that gay marriage is equal in importance to universal health care, the economic crisis, or the war in Iraq. I merely intended to point out that gay marriage is more important than the basic analysis of its material impact would imply. That point becomes clear when you consider its importance to equal dignity and self-respect.
But that outrage is the very method by which people exert pressure on the government--hence, it is a deserved and appropriate response. I think you're going to have trouble putting your point in such a way that it doesn't boil down to 'shut up, sit down, and eat your porridge and like it.'
One step in this direction can be followed up by another step. Why the hell would he have to pander for support so early in his term? That's a silly conclusion to come to period.
This
While I have been disappointed in the progress made towards lgbt equality, I understand that it is still very early in his term. And while The DOJ brief was a huge letdown for me I also understand he didn't personally write that brief. This being said I don't plan on being less vocal on my desire to be treated as an equal citizen of the USA.
And I'm crossing my fingers that we don't end up with another Clinton situation with gay issues.
Throwing a fit because the President is currently involve in trying to unfuck the country and is not currently tossing aside pressing issues the last guy shat on his plate before walking out the door is not exactly a helpful course of action either.
Also, on the political capital front, it's apparent that Congress needs all the fucking help it can get. Obama isn't an idiot. I trust that he'll get to gay rights, but I, too, will be watching closely. However, I am not going to say he's doing a terrible job, because 1. 5 months, and 2, he kind of has a whole lot of shit on his plate already, and he's been doing what he can.
That helps put things into perspective quite a bit.
I just lol'd my pants