4 ms·

There's a difference between having a stance and doing something about it. AFAIK Obama never actively fought gay's rights, he just had a negative opinion of it.

by toxican 13y ago

There's a difference between having a stance and doing something about it. AFAIK Obama never actively fought gay's rights, he just had a negative opinion of it. Mozilla's CEO took action against homosexuals and donated money to a cause seeking to deny them rights. The difference is the difference between thinking something and acting on it. But that's just how I view it.

001sky 13y ago
Obama campaigned in california in 2008 2008 was a presidential year 2008 prop 8 was on the ballot He is on record -- in california -- supporting a definition of marriage that excluded same-sex couples While speaking to "special interest groups" who supported prop8 === That is "action" with intent...it is cut and dry.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Obama campaigned in california in 2008 True. > 2008 was a presidential year True > 2008 prop 8 was on the ballot True, and Obama is on record in California in 2008 specifically opposing Prop 8 and all similar attempts (Prop 8 wasn't unique) attempts to write a similar defense of marriage into state and federal (there was an active move to do that, too, then) constitutions. > === That is "action" with intent...it is cut and dry. Sure, action against the position Eich was for.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    You seem to avoid the obvious issue. He encouraged and sought the approval of blacks and religious groups who overwhelmingly (7/10) voted against prop8 and led to that ballot measure being passed. He used <specific language> about <the subject> to win their favour. So he was not in any way neutral on this issue. It is impossible to argue.
    - toxican 13y ago
      Using that logic, Republicans clearly support gay marriage for seeking the approval of young adults, who overwhelmingly support gay rights.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > So he was not in any way neutral on this issue. It is impossible to argue. I am not arguing that he was neutral, I am arguing -- as is manifestly and unquestionably the case -- that he was on the opposite side of Eich. He specifically condemned Prop 8 and similar measures. The fact that that opposition was in spite of the fact that he very publicly stated that he shared some of the moral beliefs that others claimed made support of Prop 8 necessary, if anything, underlines his opposition, rather than mitigates it, as his position was that Prop 8 (and similar measures to enshrine a man-woman definition of marriage in Constitutions) were wrong in the then-current environment even given the moral belief that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - 001sky 13y ago
        It's the "actions not the words that matter", according to those preaching intolerance on this subject today.
        masklinn 13y ago
        > It's the "actions not the words that matter" Well then your whole case would fall down if you'd ever had one (rather than a gish gallop) since Obama had anti-equality words (retracted since) and pro-equality actions.
        001sky 13y ago
        The flip-and-the-flop have in common being <both> opportunistic and self serving.
    - masklinn 13y ago
      > He used <specific language> about <the subject> to win their favour. The very specific language he used was: > I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them. So: * he was not personally in favour of gay marriage at the time[0] * but he was most definitely and unambiguously against constitutionally forbidding it (and enshrining his personal beliefs in constitution), and did call then discriminatory * as opposed to Eich who was most definitely and unambiguously for constitutionally forbidding it Not only that, but even at the time Obama was > “open to the possibility” that his views may be “misguided“ > So he was not in any way neutral on this issue. It is impossible to argue. That's pretty much the only correct thing in your comment. [0] and has since reversed his position
      - 001sky 13y ago
        If you go around "preaching hate"[1] like obama did to blacks to get them to vote for you...you have to accept the fact that based on statistics...blacks are "homophobic" to gay marriage...So you're either a racist or a hypocrite on this...and I don't mean this personally...just the opposite. This is a correlation/causation fallacy. But from a cultural perspective, these things do not line up nicely. Do you really believe 7/10 black people are incorrigible bigots? Or is it more likely that they are dis-proportionately orthodox in their view on "word X"? Interestingly, some work Nate Silver did in 2008/2009 on opinions in this area is enlightening. Somthing like 70-80 percent of CA citizens supported the "human rights" element of the argument. But there were something like 10+/-15 percent of people who supported the "other side" because of the parsing of words. Its unlikely, as a result, anyone can conclude much about the personal views and tolerance from votes on these types of laws. Governor Swartzeneger actually vetoed CA legislation because he felt it was in conflict with the Constitution of CA. {etc}. So this stuff can go on and on, from both sides. In September 2005, the California legislature passed a bill, A.B. 849, eliminating the gender requirements for marriage now found in Family Code section 300. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. In his veto message,[14] Schwarzenegger argued that passing a law that would implicitly repeal Section 308.5 required the assent of the electorate (and separately made note of pending court challenges). There is also a nate silver piece illustrating that Obama's campaign did increase the size of the Prop 8 support in CA. Although while the black support was critical to securing the majority, its not clear Obama's marginal increase in black voter turn-out was 100% of the pivotal votes. But surely this still makes him more culpable on the issue than Eich. NOt withsatnding that any of this matters, anyways. The laws exist as they do today so this is all an absurd discussion. And better reason to use discretion and tolerance in looking back on these matters rather than preaching intolerance and black and white moral clarity and etc. ________________ [1] And by this I means explicitly supporting "exclusionary" definitions of marriage.

by toxican 13y ago

001sky 13y ago

Obama campaigned in california in 2008 2008 was a presidential year 2008 prop 8 was on the ballot He is on record -- in california -- supporting a definition of marriage that excluded same-sex couples While speaking to "special interest groups" who supported prop8 === That is "action" with intent...it is cut and dry.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Obama campaigned in california in 2008 True. > 2008 was a presidential year True > 2008 prop 8 was on the ballot True, and Obama is on record in California in 2008 specifically opposing Prop 8 and all similar attempts (Prop 8 wasn't unique) attempts to write a similar defense of marriage into state and federal (there was an active move to do that, too, then) constitutions. > === That is "action" with intent...it is cut and dry. Sure, action against the position Eich was for.
- 001sky 13y ago
  You seem to avoid the obvious issue. He encouraged and sought the approval of blacks and religious groups who overwhelmingly (7/10) voted against prop8 and led to that ballot measure being passed. He used <specific language> about <the subject> to win their favour. So he was not in any way neutral on this issue. It is impossible to argue.
  - toxican 13y ago
    Using that logic, Republicans clearly support gay marriage for seeking the approval of young adults, who overwhelmingly support gay rights.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > So he was not in any way neutral on this issue. It is impossible to argue. I am not arguing that he was neutral, I am arguing -- as is manifestly and unquestionably the case -- that he was on the opposite side of Eich. He specifically condemned Prop 8 and similar measures. The fact that that opposition was in spite of the fact that he very publicly stated that he shared some of the moral beliefs that others claimed made support of Prop 8 necessary, if anything, underlines his opposition, rather than mitigates it, as his position was that Prop 8 (and similar measures to enshrine a man-woman definition of marriage in Constitutions) were wrong in the then-current environment even given the moral belief that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - 001sky 13y ago
      It's the "actions not the words that matter", according to those preaching intolerance on this subject today.
      - masklinn 13y ago
        > It's the "actions not the words that matter" Well then your whole case would fall down if you'd ever had one (rather than a gish gallop) since Obama had anti-equality words (retracted since) and pro-equality actions.
        001sky 13y ago
        The flip-and-the-flop have in common being <both> opportunistic and self serving.
  - masklinn 13y ago
    > He used <specific language> about <the subject> to win their favour. The very specific language he used was: > I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them. So: * he was not personally in favour of gay marriage at the time[0] * but he was most definitely and unambiguously against constitutionally forbidding it (and enshrining his personal beliefs in constitution), and did call then discriminatory * as opposed to Eich who was most definitely and unambiguously for constitutionally forbidding it Not only that, but even at the time Obama was > “open to the possibility” that his views may be “misguided“ > So he was not in any way neutral on this issue. It is impossible to argue. That's pretty much the only correct thing in your comment. [0] and has since reversed his position
    - 001sky 13y ago
      If you go around "preaching hate"[1] like obama did to blacks to get them to vote for you...you have to accept the fact that based on statistics...blacks are "homophobic" to gay marriage...So you're either a racist or a hypocrite on this...and I don't mean this personally...just the opposite. This is a correlation/causation fallacy. But from a cultural perspective, these things do not line up nicely. Do you really believe 7/10 black people are incorrigible bigots? Or is it more likely that they are dis-proportionately orthodox in their view on "word X"? Interestingly, some work Nate Silver did in 2008/2009 on opinions in this area is enlightening. Somthing like 70-80 percent of CA citizens supported the "human rights" element of the argument. But there were something like 10+/-15 percent of people who supported the "other side" because of the parsing of words. Its unlikely, as a result, anyone can conclude much about the personal views and tolerance from votes on these types of laws. Governor Swartzeneger actually vetoed CA legislation because he felt it was in conflict with the Constitution of CA. {etc}. So this stuff can go on and on, from both sides. In September 2005, the California legislature passed a bill, A.B. 849, eliminating the gender requirements for marriage now found in Family Code section 300. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. In his veto message,[14] Schwarzenegger argued that passing a law that would implicitly repeal Section 308.5 required the assent of the electorate (and separately made note of pending court challenges). There is also a nate silver piece illustrating that Obama's campaign did increase the size of the Prop 8 support in CA. Although while the black support was critical to securing the majority, its not clear Obama's marginal increase in black voter turn-out was 100% of the pivotal votes. But surely this still makes him more culpable on the issue than Eich. NOt withsatnding that any of this matters, anyways. The laws exist as they do today so this is all an absurd discussion. And better reason to use discretion and tolerance in looking back on these matters rather than preaching intolerance and black and white moral clarity and etc. ________________ [1] And by this I means explicitly supporting "exclusionary" definitions of marriage.