- ‹ previous
- 2373 of 2798
- next ›
Obama and Prop 8
OBAMA AND PROP 8....Several months ago Barack Obama came out against Proposition 8, an initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in California, but since then he hasn't exactly been very vocal about his opposition. Since African-Americans support Prop 8 by a wider margin than any other ethnic group, Andrew Sullivan thinks Obama should use his bully pulpit to help turn the tide:
If he does not stand up for gay couples now, why should we believe he will when he is in office? And if black Americans are the critical bloc that helps kill civil rights for gays, that will not help deepen Obama's governing coalition. It could tear it apart.
Memo to Obama: make an ad. Speak loudly. Defend equality. Defend it when it might actually lose you some votes. Show us you are not another Clinton.
The argument against following Andrew's advice is obvious and compelling: Obama looks like he has the election in the bag right now, so why take even a tiny chance of blowing it? It's easy for bloggers and other amateurs to sit on the sidelines and tell Obama to take risky, principled stands on whatever their pet issue happens to be, but bloggers and amateurs don't have to take the heat if it doesn't work out, do they?
In other words, I get it. But I agree with Andrew anyway. My biggest concern about Obama all along has been his almost preternatural caution, and while this has obviously served him well during the financial crisis of the past few weeks, it's hard not to wonder when, if ever, he's going to show a little more, um, audacity on selling a progressive agenda to the country. Right now, California progressives need some help on Prop 8, and he's supposed to be our champion. So when are we going to see some leadership on this?
Plenty of people disagree with me about this. Better to play it safe for now, get elected, and then let big congressional majorities work their magic. Good things will follow. But I'm not so sure. I've got a broader piece on this topic coming up in the November issue of the magazine, but my main point is easy to summarize: in the end, congressional majorities aren't enough. You need public opinion behind you too, and the only way to get that is by actively trying to mold public opinion. So far Obama hasn't really tried to do that, and that's troubling for the progressive movement. If he's unwilling to take a few minor risks now, how likely is it that he's going to be willing to take a few bigger risks if and when he's elected?
So throw us a bone, Barack. Take a small risk on behalf of a core progressive principle. Make an ad.
OBAMA AND PROP 8....Several months ago Barack Obama came out against Proposition 8...
Several months ago, hmmm...could be about the time he paid a visit to a gay billionaire who is a major Democratic contributor.
Kevin, I get what you're saying, but the problem is that Obama taking a stand here won't actually accomplish anything. You know how the media works -- the story will just be "OBAMA SUPPORTS BIG GAY THING" and it'll drown out whatever substantive arguments he tries to make. It's also the case that with 15 days until an election, time is a zero-sum game. He can't just casually mention that he opposes prop 8 and move on -- if he does, that will be the story, TO THE EXCLUSION OF all the other things he'd like to be talking about.
What I DO think he should do -- and it's not clear whether this is legal -- is try to mobilize some of his grassroots network in CA to do some targeted, door-to-door persuasion and legwork, of the kind that is so impressing observers in other states. The whole idea of an Obama presidency is that he'll focus on mobilizing actual citizens so that going on TV and announcing X or Y position isn't his only usable lever of power. Prop 8 would be a good test of that thesis.
There are plenty of ways for Obama to do this. One way is to point out that this kind of initiative may be unconstitutional, following Romer v. Evans 517 U.S. 620 (1996)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1039.ZO.html
and that it is not really a legitimate object for legislation or constitutionalization as a result.
He is, after all, something of a constitutional expert, and he knows the lay of this particular piece of ground.
As a gay man myself and Californian facing the deprivation of rights under this stupid proposition, I really don't think that Obama needs to hand this issue to McCain. I'd really rather have him win.
Part of the reason that I feel this way is that I believe Romer v. Evans can be used to invalidate Prop 8, and the only way that's likely to stay good law is if a Democrat is in the White House to appoint Supreme Court justices for the next few years.
I kind of agree with that; but I saw even less potential for really spooking voters if he had actually followed his promise to fight the FISA retroactive immunity provision, and he could not even muster the cojones to stick with that. So i would be shocked if he does anything substantive here.
Just win first, then worry about saving the world. Winning takes a unified focused unselfish effort. After the election is won then pressure, attack, schmooze or cajole him all you want but get him in first!
As a liberal in Chicago, I hear this from time to time..... that Obama soundfs and looks great, but that he's not a real/assertive/bold progressive when the rubber hits the road. As someone who's been a supporter for a long time, all I can say is....
WAIT.
Obama is an awesome progressive because he doesn't do stupid grandstanding stuff like this. He sits down, talks to everybody, acknowledges all opinions, and then does the exact most progressive thing available in the situation. I know that it's scary for people in California (my home state) and elsewhere to vote for someone who seems a bit risky, but come on. The election is 2 weeks away. You really can't wait for Obama to start handing out presents?
Trust me, this is going to work out really well for progressives. He's not the messiah and some policies are going to be higher priorities than others, but seriously, can we all just relax a little bit?
With all due respect, Kevin, but how is gay marriage a core principle. I support it, but Obama has taken the (politically wiser) civil union position, and I think he should stay with it. After a few years, gay marriage will simply be another incremental step, and won't arouse the ire and passion of many that fear that the liberals are trying to destroy their America.
Much as I support Obama in this election, I've never had any illusions. He's a center or center-right Democrat who ends up being close to the old DLC on actual positions. And I think the optics of gay marriage are that it's for white gays with money, so it has limited appeal. Besides, he may actually not like it.
On the other hand, his really big strengths are that he's a really smart politician who seems to be out to do a little more than build up his own image, and that he's new, so we can finally get away from the same old arguments we've been rehashing since the days of dear, dead Dick Nixon.
Really, as the country has changed profoundly, politicians have been talking about the same old crap for at least 25 years and in some cases getting on 40 years. It's time to change the subjects. Obama can do that; Hillary couldn't; McCain can't; Palin doesn't want to; really no other Democrat knew how. He and his people do.
Endorsing gay marriage would defeat that ability to change the subject. If I were advising him, I'd also tell him he should stay mum. Changing the subject is the most important thing he can do for the country.
If I were a conservative in California I would welcome Obama campaigning against Prop 8. Since the presidential election is hopeless at least I could defeat him in some small way by passing Prop 8.
Just win first.
Um, after the VP debate, I said Biden's position (and his claimed position for Obama) on gay marriage was gutless, contradictory, and mostly incomprehensible.
I'm glad we're going to have a Dem in the Whitehouse Kevin, but why do you keep thinking Obama is going to do something positive about issues he has previously either ignored or opposed?
Until he gets in, he is running an extremely conservative, risk nothing, campaign.
And when you look who his advisors are: Biden, Sunstein, Powell, what do you expect his cabinet is going to look like (in terms of positions) and what his positions and policy preferences are going to be?
Not to mention that he will be faced with an extremely bad economy and yet he's going to want to win reelection in four years.
Not going to happen. Remember in the VP debate when both Biden and Palin fell all over themselves as to who was more tolerant, then each answered an emphatic "no" when asked specifically about gay marriage? Although I agree with you wholeheartedly, Kevin, this is obviously too radioactive a topic for the less evolved.
"Right now, California progressives need some help on Prop 8 ..."
Only because Gavin Newsom is such a politically tone-deaf moron.
"Whether they like it or not!" Way to blow it, jackass!
Aw, Jesus.
I disagree, Kevin.
Prop 8 is a carpet-bagged stupid prop I wish wouldn't win but, no, Obama shouldn't campaign against it two weeks before the election.
Obama's gonna break a lot of liberal hearts, but he still beats Bush/McCain. Pressure the WH from Congress and the states rather than wait for liberal leadership at the top of the ticket. This is the Democratic nominee after all.
Win the Bully Pulpit first, then preach.
One more thing: "in the end, congressional majorities aren't enough."
That's true. But a liberal Supreme Court might very well be enough.
Something to consider very strongly here.
it's hard not to wonder when, if ever, he's going to show a little more, um, audacity on selling a progressive agenda to the country.
It's even harder not to wonder why progressives weren't wondering this about, you know, nine or ten months ago.
Obama is walking on egg-shells now. He has to be Mr. Perfect, so he's gotta dodge the issue until after the election.
If he can make a principled stand, it'll warm our sympathies, but the past eight years have sobered me as to the pragmatics of politics. We have a good thing, possibly, let's not screw it up.
Wouldn't that offend the republicans and independants he's going to put in the cabinet?
I'm with the crowd that says WIN FIRST.
However, I am also watching that multi-hundred-million dollar donor and email base that our next president has. How do you think THAT will change the equation? Both in terms of what he controls...and what we can do with our connections. I have high hopes for citizen activism unlike anything we've ever seen...
I seem to remember that Bill Clinton, right after his inauguration, made a priority for making the military a safe place for gays. Man did he burn a lot of political capital doing that.
While I agree with the need to do something, I also think it would have been wiser to spend that political capital on something else. As it was Clinton came in strong and immediately created bad feelings. Please, let's learn from history.
Or am I misremembering?
I think you're slightly misremembering. I believe what happened is that Clinton got sandbagged by one of his more conservative advisors, Sam Nunn. And in hindsight, most people think the Clinton compromise of Don't Ask Don't Tell didn't go far enough and as you know has been abused by the armed services to toss out all sorts of good soldiers.
That's one reason why I think the Biden/Obama position is gutless and wrong on the politics.
I think, Kevin, you are wrong. Lets not give the great unwashed a chance to write him off as a fringe dwelling liberal looney tune.
Have some faith and hope that Ruck (above) is right, i.e. that you don't really know him and he will deliver.
Frankly, lets get the man in office before we start dividing the electorate. This is about politics not justice or fair play. Thats the right call right now.
Kevin, are you really willing to risk throwing away the presidency over Prop 8? REALLY?
I strongly oppose Prop 8, but I think this is a terrible time to play with political dynamite. A lot of people have strong feelings (prejudices) about this issue. Like it or not, we need moderates and independents in order to win. If Obama came out strongly against 8 right now, it might make many of them reconsider their vote.
In my book, it's a good thing that Obama is pragmatic. It means that he might actually get elected. Haven't we been moaning for years about how Democrats always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Fortunately, I think Obama is smart enough not to make that mistake again.
Oh yeah, and what Dan Munz said above about the probable media reaction.
I just got an e-mail from Sen. Obama asking me to please support my congressman's re-election campaign. My representative is in no danger whatsoever of losing, but it was a nice gesture on Obama's part and undoubtedly designed to strengthen his hand with Congress when he becomes president. So how about Obama using his wonderful mailing list to hit all good California Democrats with a message urging the defeat of Proposition 8 because we should all oppose discrimination?
Jerry, I went and read Wikipedia about the events. Clinton angered people on both sides of the issue. I remember being angered because I wanted him to have established more successes before he tackled such an incendiary issue.
I agree that gay rights is an important issue. One of the bad aspects of politics, though, is that you can't always win the battles you want to when you want. I hope prop 8 fails. If it passes it will be a setback for sure, but temporary at most. There are other battles to be fought, and to fight them Obama needs to be in a stronger position, that is president.
Personally, I think Palin's position will scare the bejeesus out of the people who oppose prop 8 and may get more people to vote. I know she's already motivated a lot of people to look harder at issues and campaign for and contribute to Obama.
Well, I can't dispute the Wikipedia!
Personally, I think Palin's position will scare the bejeesus out of the people who oppose prop 8 and may get more people to vote. I know she's already motivated a lot of people to look harder at issues and campaign for and contribute to Obama.
I think/hope you're right. Regrettably, I live in a red state, and in tonight's paper, the comments against Palin are running about 30:1. The typical comment in the paper is some rednecked comment about illegal aliens, but Palin tonight in the paper shows that a lot of people, really just don't care who marries who.
With two weeks to go, it seems dumb for Obama to take a stand. Still, if there was an election for it, 538.com would suggest this is that election. And what else will Obama be using that 150M for?
But hell, there only gays, and mostly rich and white at that, it's not like they are really being discriminated against.
And once elected, I am sure that Obama and Biden will get right out there in front and start pushing for all sorts of liberal positions that up until now, they've always had a good reason for waiting for another day. Everything they've said till now, and all of their advisors certainly make me think of these two as the most liberal senators around.
California is as safe a state for Obama as anyone could wish for. And yet, even in tolerant California, Prop 8 is close to passing. That tells you why Obama cannot throw his weight against Prop 8. He can't afford the reaction in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri. At the very least it would give the Republican noise machine something to dominate the news with for several days, and ammo for the argument that Obama is a secret lefty who will take your house, truck and gun and give them to gay black hippie polar bears.
I feel craven saying this, and in principle Sullivan is right (for once) about this issue. But Sullivan is an enthusiast. He doesn't have to win anything or govern, and he's overconfident about Obama having it locked up.
This is the issue where the demographics and attitudes of younger people mean that it's only a matter of time. There will be no reactionary back pedaling. In eight years, such a proposition would simply not pass in California. On the other hand, eight years of McCain/Palin ... I don't wanna sound like Faulkner condescendingly saying "go slow," but time is on our side here and we may have to just use that.
Should probably read something more like:
Regrettably, I live in a red state, but even here in tonight's paper, the comments against Palin are running about 30:1.
"Better to play it safe for now, get elected, and then let big congressional majorities work their magic."
Right. What Kevin is saying here is that Obama is lying to voters about his views and his intentions and that once he is elected, people will realize too late that they were deceived.
Your point is thoroughly irrational. With McCain's surrogates trying to decide whether to add "God Damn America !" to the robocall list, you want Obama to come out in any way, shape, or form in favor of gay marriage ??? Are you insane ?
Let's see....the right is already foaming at the mouth over Obama's socialism and skin color and Muslimness...throw in support for gay marriage and they might have a collective grand mal seizure. Who knows, they might even swallow their tongue.....
Right. What Kevin is saying here is that Obama is lying to voters about his views and his intentions and that once he is elected, people will realize too late that they were deceived.
Right, that never happened before like in 2000 or 2004.
Plus, if people persist in being dumb-asses and insist on having their ignorance catered to then there may be no other way to do the right thing.
Because we have a whole lot people who seem to be against doing the right thing for some reason.
For 28% it's because they are insane. It's called authoritarianism. They are the kind of people who have no self awareness of their own hypocrisy. Reference your own comment for an example.
That's the playing field we got and Obama's a playa, yo!
Does no one else remember the 2004 election?
Bush would have lost reelection had Rove not been able to manufacture an issue (gay marriage) to energize the evangelical base and get them out to vote. Without the wedge issue of gay marriage, the turnout of Evangelicals would not have been high enough for Bush to win reelection.
The first and foremost objective must be to elect Obama.
This is true even if your ONLY concern is gay rights/gay marriage as the next president will likely appoint two or more Supreme Court justices.
The second priority is to win as many house and senate seats as possible.
Any direct endorsement of gay marriage by Obama will turn some voters away from Obama and/or encourage others to vote who might not otherwise have stayed away.
It's easy to be cavalier about sacrificing a couple of percentage points in California where Obama enjoys a substantial margin... but a loss of a couple of percentage points nationwide could easily cost Obama several swing states, not to mention contribute to the loss of house and senate seats.
Nor is it even clear that an Obama endorsement would be a net asset to defeat prop 8 (as someone else pointed out, an endorsement could rally conservatives in California to vote and hand Obama a symbolic defeat).
Clinton's endorsement of Don't Ask, Don't Tell didn't just cost him political capital, it also cost Democrats house and senate seats and helped ease the path for the 'Republican Revolution' under Gingrich.
Gay marriage is a battle that will need to be fought from state to state unless and until the issue is settled by the Supreme Court (which leads us back to the number one priority: Obama must be elected first and foremost).
Look, Obama isn't going to to do anything. That much has been clear as he's not taken a stand on anything in the last year. But under Obama the climate for citizen and local activism will be much better. Which I guess is what the campaign is about. Creating an environment where the people actually DO have the power to change things.
And Gavin Newsom? He deserves to lose this battle even if every other homosexual doesn't.
I think Obama would be a fool to talk about this now. Personally, I don't care if gay marriage is legal or not. It is just a nonissue for me.
Illegal immigration is one big issue that neither McCaine nor Obama will dare discuss. Probably because so many of us are tired that some illegals get free tuition and health care, and if one runs into you on the road, they get off scott free. If a citizen runs into you you can take them to court, whatever. Illegals get off free.
There are *lots* of liberals against illegal immigration. I, for one, am sick of this being called a Republican position.
No way am I a Republican.
And gay marriage is fine with me... illegals having more rights than citizens is not.
If I remember correctly -- and I do -- our governor has also "mildly" come out against Prop. 8. After p-ssing off the CA republican party, Arnold has no future as a republican in the state. If he's going to be Senator, he's going to have to run as a independent. I'd like to see him use some of whatever political capital he's got left to join the "NO against 8" campaign. But where is he? Nowhwere, mum, invisible . . . Since he is the most influential politician in a state where we abhor almost all our politicians (it's the only answer I can come up with, else why would we have such a horrendous congressional delegation of both stripes and such lame, out of touch becaue they don't fear losing Senators), he's one of the few that the folks who are not sure about this issue might listen to --- but he's MIA.
So while I wouldn't mind if Obama reiterated his support for the anti-8 position, I think Andrew ought to call out Schwarzenegger before he points to Obama.
Oh yeah, the only good thing about the Pro-8 campaign is that they have effectively killed Gavin Newsom's chances of being governor. What a smug, arrogant a-hole Newsom is. He's right on the issue of gay rights but can't imagine that anyone seeing the issue differently or anyone trying to think it through to arrive at a new, pro-gay marriage place might need to be brought along and talked to in a way that respects their wrestling with the issue. Instead, he assumes his own superior morality and mocks those who aren't there yet. With friends like him . . . .
Throw progressives a bone??
Are we forgetting that a black man seems very soon to be president-elect of the United States? If this isn't a miraculous progressive event, happening, time, what is????
With death and financial destruction raining down on us in these miserable bush years, let's get a real pro life, pro human on our side.
All part of keeping bloggers trivial and irrelevant. First we have MattY going on and on about how regulating plumbers puts enormous costs on the economy, and now KDrum thinks the Obama campaign should be taking directions from Andrew Sullivan, the rightwing conservative blogger.
Is defeating Prop 8 essential to the health of the nation? Evidently not, or we would never have made it this far.
Or, for that matter, why not endorse legalization of marijuana? Every city, county, and state is screaming about the costs of government, which would be lessened by legalization. Democrats favor legalization by 75% and Republicans favor it by 60%- where is the downside?
The simple fact is that gay marriage is a trivial event compared with stuff like the ongoing pay discrimination against women, the stolen Indian Trust Funds, the total lack of preparation for dealing with global warming, the financial meltdowns, etc etc etc.
But maybe it will take a McCain-Palin administration to convince some liberal bloggers that this is a serious business.
Remember what a huge tactical mistake Clinton made by making gays in the military a prominent issue immediately upon taking office. It is a lightning rod issue that will detract from Obama's ability to address more pressing problems.
As a gay person, I want to throw in my two cents: I know that theoretically, Obama should speak out against Prop 8 because he could help and it is the right thing to do. But imagine this scenario: He speaks out against it and it only helps the numbers slightly, but not enough to defeat the ban, BUT it erodes his lead just enough that it either loses him the election or makes the likelihood of a 2000 fiasco even greater. Now there are two results that work doubly against the gay community. One is that this cements the opinion of Democrats that defending gay rights is a campaign killer and we see even less support from that end. Two is that we get McCain in, he appoints two conservative SCOTUS Justices and we see some sweeping and negative Federal rulings that not only destroy gay rights nationally, but then go after their other favorite punching bag: women's reproductive rights.
Now, having said that, and knowing what a brilliant communicator he is, there just might be a way to send a message about the ban that is truthful and helpful, while actually shoring up some of the more fair-minded religious voters out there. As sickening as it sounds, kind of an approach like this: "I don't think you need to be a Christian to understand that loving thy neighbor is the right thing to do, but I will say that my faith compels me to defend those who are unduly burdened by hatred."
There is not a perfect answer for this, but I really don't like my life and my fellows in the GLBT community being constantly used as political objects, either.
Prop 8 is a state issue. It is not his job to inject his ideas in this or any other state matter. He is running for president. Besides, with two weeks to go, why give the opposition additional ammunition?
Yeah, that's all we need now a Black-Muslim-Communist-Foreigner now becoming a Gay-Black-Muslim-Communist-Foreigner.
On one hand that would be a major F*ck you to the GOP,we beat you guys with a Gay-Black-Muslim-Communist-Foreigner, but on the other hand, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American People.
Regardless of what happens on Prop 8, all I can say to all the gay folks out there, keep working and soon you too will be able to lose half your stuff because somebody said they loved you.
I would agree with Kevin more if this were a once in a lifetime opportunity to enact equality for gays. But it isn't. The movement towards equality is inexorable, and all Prop 8 will do is, at the worst, delay the inevitable for a couple of years. That's not to be taken lightly if you care about gays getting a fair shake, let alone if you are gay yourself. But surely a McCain win (and his nominees to replace Stevens, Ginsburg, probably Souter) would be far more hazardous to the cause of gay equality than a Prop 8 win.
Middle tack: Re-release and publicize Obama's statement against Prop. 8 from early summer.
Meanwhile, every one of you: If you really give a damn about equality for gay Americans, contribute to www.noonprop8.com.
kevin... do you remember what you wrote immediately after the 2004 election? As I recall you had this sudden realization that the gays had been thrown under the bus for the cause of "caution." It didn't help then, certainly. It hasn't helped since then. We're a reliable voting bloc, but as Andrew points out, it's a very abusive relationship. People keep saying "once we win this election" ... but, no "once we win re-election," but, wait, this next one is even more important....
It's all a sham. Most straight people don't really care, and I don't blame them. But that doesn't make it any less shameful.
re: serial cat owner:
are you seriously equating gay marriage to legalizing marijuana?
I think that simply restoring the constitution will be a full-time job. One of the reasons liberalism became a pejorative boat-anchor to progress in the past decade is that side issues are championed while truly fundamental problems are left un-addressed.
Side issues? Certainly! We have the government being run by people who are beholden to big money and increasingly unaccountable to the ordinary citizen. Can any real progress be made when this is the case? Formulating and implementing policies that restore the balance of political power, protect individual privacy, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility lead to civil mechanisms that preserve the environment, change our energy practices and guarantee equitable legal protections for unpopular minorities.
OK, maybe not as simple as that, but still there's a ton of work to be done just rolling the country back to the level of good governance we enjoyed in . . . say . . . the Nixon administration. Some of the other pressing needs will have to wait. Otherwise, the new president will be too distracted to make lasting change.
I wish Obama would come out against Prop 8, but problem is, Obama says he's against Prop 8 but he's also against same-sex marriage. The two positions are simply not reconcilable.
I'm afraid that President Obama is not going to be any more of a boon to LGBT civil rights than Clinton was. We will have to do it on our own, like always. But that's OK, we're winning anyway.