Using Technology to Deepen Democracy, Using Democracy to Ensure Technology Benefits Us All

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Why Doesn't Obama Think Warren Is Disagreeing in Disagreeable Way? UPDATED TWICE



I agree we can disagree without being disagreeable. I don't agree that the comparison of gay marriage to child rape is agreeable or that lying to people about the implications of Prop 8 in order to get hate written into a State Constitution is agreeable disagreement. Capitulation isn't "coming together."

And, by the way, no, I don't think "we all know" what a ferocious defender you are of LGBTQ folks, Mr President Elect. I love you, but I consider that an area in which you have to prove your leadership after some lukewarm moves so far, of which this latest is hardly confidence inspiring.

UPDATE: Revealing debate on the topic over on CNN:



UPDATE TWO: This dKos diarist offers up an anecdote that has given me pause but not yet changed my mind. Eric is coming around on this a little bit, especially given the Lowery book-end, and he usually is more sensible than I am about these things, so we'll see. I guess if Warren manages to be bland and Lowery to be a firebrand this will turn out, uh, okay, ish, but I still think this was a mistake, I still think too many progressives think queers are frivolous to expect their demand for equal treatment to be any kind of political priority, and I still think the way to reach out to social conservatives is to marginalize the worst of them while opening the way to more reasonable ones. And this last strategy requires not falling for "America's Pastor" PR like Warren's when there is demonstrably a dime thin difference between him and the likes of Dobson.

2 comments:

jimf said...

> And, by the way, no, I don't think "we all know" what
> a ferocious defender you are of LGBTQ folks,
> Mr President Elect. I love you, but I consider that
> an area in which you have to prove your leadership
> after some lukewarm moves so far, of which this
> latest is hardly confidence inspiring.

If I had to guess, I'd say that Obama (or his handlers)
are quite consciously sending thinly-veiled signals to
the right wingers who are fully expected to interpret them
as ("Wink, wink, don't worry -- we don't like fags
either").

So "don't ask don't tell" will stand until 1) "more important
matters", like the war in Iraq and the economic woes,
are handled and until 2) the Joint Chiefs, et al., have
achieved "consensus" on the issue. In other words,
until hell freezes over.

Or perhaps, until Margaret Witt's court case forces his
hand.

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:FUgYvDDFFjQJ:seattlepi.nwsource.com/

Dale Carrico said...

He doesn't come off to me as heterosexist or homogay phobic at all, except the "phobic" suffix does seem apt to describe otherwise perfectly nice politicians who become insanely cautious around the issue of treating their queer friends family members and neighbors as actual human beings, especially given the fact that the majority of the country is way ahead of them already on this score. Anyway, it's been pointed out to me that this hullabaloo gave Obama the occasion to declare his fierce devotion to the equality of gay people, a statement of support presumably less qualified than any President has ever managed hitherto -- can that possibly be true? But of course, the idea that one can only earn the right to say queer citizens are human beings by paying the price of providing an historic and legitimizing public stage to a man who implies queer love is inherently a matter of child rape is already a profoundly even flabbergastingly queer-bashing expression.