Barack Obama At National Prayer Breakfast

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 11:11am

Obama SLAMS Uganda for wanting to kill gays. Hillary Clinton claims that gays and lesbians deserve to be treated like regular human beings. Obama uses big words like "unconscionable" not realizing that his own position on marriage equality is, in fact, unconscionable.

Let's Not Kill Them, Let's Just Deprive Them Of Their Rights!

Updated On: 2/4/10 at 11:11 AM

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 11:30am

At this point I think Obama could come out as gay, declare gay marriage legal, get married on the white house lawn, and sign an executive order to end DADT and you STILL wouldn't be happy.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 11:33am

I'd be perfectly happy if he just endorsed full equality for gay men and women. That's all.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 11:36am

Me too. But I don't see how slamming every step in the right direction is beneficial.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 11:38am

I don't see how mistaking blatant hypocrisy for a step in the right direction is beneficial.

But there, he's got a lot on his plate, we can't expect him to treat all Americans equally, he's very busy, he's got so much to be doing, we can't expect him to drop everything to address our concerns, we should be happy that soon, thanks to Obama, gays and lesbians will be able to proudly serve the country that deprives them of their rights!

Updated On: 2/4/10 at 11:38 AM

[romantico]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 11:49am

How can Obama win with people like Roscoe? I totally understand your bitterness to an extent,but do you really think we would be any better if McCain or a Republican won? We will never make progress as long as there are people like Roscoe around criticizing constantly how not enough is being done.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 11:53am

Dear roman, clearly things would be worse if McCain or a Republican won. I never said otherwise. I'm not sure how supporting Obama in his bigotry and hypocrisy make for progress, though.

Updated On: 2/4/10 at 11:53 AM

[romantico]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 11:56am

Seriously? You can't even recognize his efforts? Yeah, I agree he may not be doing as much as you and I would like but it's better than any other President.DADT,even though it is taken longer than I would like will be a thing of the past and Obama will be responsible for that.Do you really think we elect anytime soon a pro gay President who will do all the things you would like to see happen?

Updated On: 2/4/10 at 11:56 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 12:09pm

Can you not recognize the hypocrisy at all in Obama's little speech? That his own position on gay marriage is, in his own words and by his own definition, "unconscionable"?

Bully for his decision to get DADT going, after a full year and a full refusal to issue an executive order ending discharges under the policy. Congrats to him for finally getting around to doing the right thing.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 12:11pm

"Congrats to him for finally getting around to doing the right thing."

Well at least that's something.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 12:14pm

No Roscoe's right- not coming out in support of Marriage equality is ABSOLUTELY equal to calling for gays to be put to death. Roscoe's always right.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 12:16pm

Yeah, hip hooray for Obama's bare minimum. Folks are so easily satisfied. "At least he's not John McCain." Jesus.

So we'll just have to give him time. He's got a lot on his plate. He's just a busy man. So busy. We can't expect him to drop everything just to address our concerns. Nope. He's far too busy busy busy.

[tazber]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 12:19pm

I think Roscoe's point is that it's easy to slam Uganda for the heinous and savage practice of killing gays.

But when it comes down to actually doing something in his own country (that he promised to do, natch) there is a disconnect.

However the DADT issue certainly seems to be picking up steam.

So, I'm not taking sides, I think it's great that he said what he said. But it does seem overtly political.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 12:21pm

I have no problem with hypocrisy when the paradigm shift is moving in our direction.

I only object to hypocrisy when it is entrenched on the other side.

And, yes, I know that's hypocritical of me. I have no problem with that either.

[Q]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 1:13pm

I don't care what he said at that breakfast - it bothers me tremendously that he was there at all.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 1:53pm

PJ: No problem with that!

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 2:08pm

Q, yes, of course the National Prayer Breakfast is run by the folks who got the Ugandan Kill The Gays Law set up in the first place.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 2:17pm

"Q, yes, of course the National Prayer Breakfast is run by the folks who got the Ugandan Kill The Gays Law set up in the first place."

Which means, at least, he's not preaching to the choir.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 4:45pm

The grumblings re: the study on ending DADT seem slightly misplaced after I read the NY Times article regarding Admiral Mullen.

Listed as some of the issues being studied are the question of what if one soldier is married to a man in a state where it's legal but are stationed in a state where it's not. How will benefits and living arrangements work for the spouses of gay soldiers. They are questions that go much further than, 'how with the breeders accept the fags??' I'm impressed by the scope of what is to be studied and, if DADT is indeed modified to reduce dismissals while working through the logistics, I'm not all that against it.

[Q]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 4:47pm

Of course, those questions would be moot if they would federalize marriage for everyone.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 4:51pm

Well, you know what happens when you bring God into the mix...

[Q]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 4:56pm

"you know what happens when you bring God into the mix..."

He brought that up in his address this morning!

"Renewing his call for more civility in politics, Obama decried Washington, D.C., as a 'Tower of Babel' -- which he pronounced 'babble' -- in which 'we lose the sound of God's voice.'"

[javero]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 4:58pm

Q,

Please forgive my naivety, but wouldn't DoD recognizing the civil unions of service members where benefits are concerned precipitate federalizing marriage?

A few attorney friends and I were discussing the possible ramifications of such action yesterday. I mean if DoD takes that tack, then the various states in charge of their national guard units would have to follow suit or a non-conforming state faces one hellacious law suit.

I see this move as a stroke of political genius on the part of the White House.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 4:59pm

I always thought it WAS pronounced "babble." How do you say it?

[Q]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 5:01pm

I suppose that's possible. But the two things that popped into my head were:

1) the government tends to opperate outside the boundaries of its own laws (ie, 'do not call lists' don't apply to us - as a ridiculous but adequate example.)

2) can you actually sue the government where the military is concerned?