tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post69409522628822448..comments2023-11-22T01:14:54.298-08:00Comments on amor mundi: Why Doesn't Obama Think Warren Is Disagreeing in Disagreeable Way? UPDATED TWICEDale Carricohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-70926281374193207272008-12-19T10:01:00.000-08:002008-12-19T10:01:00.000-08:00He doesn't come off to me as heterosexist or homog...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.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-43036293867621559292008-12-19T09:38:00.000-08:002008-12-19T09:38:00.000-08:00> And, by the way, no, I don't think "...> And, by the way, no, I don't think "we all know" what<BR/>> a ferocious defender you are of LGBTQ folks,<BR/>> Mr President Elect. I love you, but I consider that<BR/>> an area in which you have to prove your leadership<BR/>> after some lukewarm moves so far, of which this<BR/>> latest is hardly confidence inspiring.<BR/><BR/>If I had to guess, I'd say that Obama (or his handlers)<BR/>are quite consciously sending thinly-veiled signals to<BR/>the right wingers who are fully expected to interpret them<BR/>as ("Wink, wink, don't worry -- we don't like fags<BR/>either").<BR/><BR/>So "don't ask don't tell" will stand until 1) "more important<BR/>matters", like the war in Iraq and the economic woes,<BR/>are handled and until 2) the Joint Chiefs, et al., have<BR/>achieved "consensus" on the issue. In other words,<BR/>until hell freezes over.<BR/><BR/>Or perhaps, until Margaret Witt's court case forces his<BR/>hand.<BR/><BR/>http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:FUgYvDDFFjQJ:seattlepi.nwsource.com/jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.com