15 responses

  1. RMB
    May 22, 2009

    “Do you think he can make it through the entire visit without mentioning Prop 8?”

    If he has a history of walking like a duck, and has a history of talking like a duck, chances are he’ll probably act like a duck in the future.

  2. Michael Ditto
    May 22, 2009

    Here’s hoping he’s been tipped off to the outcome and is coming to CA on that day on purpose in order to use it as a springboard for federal action, and the fundraiser is just one stop on his California trip.

    I can hope.

  3. Pender
    May 22, 2009

    Michael, that was my first thought too. My second thought was that maybe we’re acting like battered spouses, foolishly hoping for the best from someone who hasn’t demonstrated any such inclination. We’ll see, I guess.

  4. Steve Krotz
    May 22, 2009

    I spent a lot of time getting Clinton elected in ’92 and was really hurt and incensed to watch him burn the GLBT bridges behind him. In ’96 I just couldn’t bring myself to work for his reelection in any way.

    In this last cycle, I really wanted to believe that Obama actually meant what he said. Lately, however, I find myself trying very hard not to be cynical. Unfortunately, I’m starting to get this feeling of deja vu all over again.

    The scary thing in all of this is that Obama was and is the best that could be elected. I just hope I’m wrong about my growing negativism.

    Either way, we should have a much clearer idea of where he’s headed after his CA visit.

  5. Patrick
    May 22, 2009

    Without delving too much into politics, this is my current (and no doubt flawed) thinking:

    1) Obama has been courting to some degree evangelical support – evidenced by Rick Warren at inauguration. Taking a lead on gay rights would undo all his efforts to attract that crowd.

    2) Obama knows that the tide is turning toward gay rights. With each year that passes more and more states will give gays various rights and Congress will be more and more likely to pass some as well. That said, he doesn’t have to do anything except sign any bills that come his way. Being a politician, he knows the rights will come and he doesn’t have to alienate any significant number of potential 2012 voting groups (let’s face it, the glbt voting base, 4%, is substantially smaller than the evangelical voting base and I believe smaller than the liberal evangelical voting base).

    Therefore, because he’s a politician, Obama will probably do nothing. At least, that’s how I’m looking at it.

  6. aratina
    May 22, 2009

    Sadly, yes. I keep thinking back on how fast he apologized for the Special Olympics gaffe. He still hasn’t apologized for putting that bigot Rick Warren up on the Inaugural podium. He won’t stop this game either because he’s winning over conservatives left and right and isolating the old neocon leadership (Cheney, Limbaugh, Gingrich, etc.).

    Our president is a kick-ass politician, that’s for sure, but despite the rhetoric, he isn’t a very sympathetic person to minority struggles. I really can’t blame him for playing to the right-wingers, though. In some ways he is calming the racial storm they kicked up during the election. At this point, I’ve lost hope from all the gay-evasion and can’t believe I got caught up in all the rhetoric. (Though the spark is still there waiting to burn brightly again should he move on DADT, DOMA, or just say something positive about LGBT rights!) If voters were as apathetically centered on every issue as President Obama, he would never have won that glorious night.

  7. JandyA
    May 22, 2009

    I think Obama is our best bet for any progress toward LGBT equal rights at the Federal Level. Even if he does NOTHING for us, at least he won’t do anything against us (I hope).

    Such could not be said of the past Administrations.

  8. Trevor
    May 23, 2009

    I think the timing of his visit it purely coincidental. Its more likely his visit is related to the financial mess California is in. If anyone is “too big to fail” it would be the most populous state in the Union. He’s probably going there to announce “stimulus” money for California.

  9. Regan DuCasse
    May 24, 2009

    Although he said he didn’t support gay marriage, he was DEFINITE about not supporting any Constitutional amendments to BAN it.
    California’s decision is about the amendment. And if anything, he should reiterate NOT supporting the amendment.

    But if our coward of a governor had signed the legislative bill the FIRST time or the second, the marriage issue would have more resembled what happened in NH and ME. It WAS the people’s representatives who voted for marriage equality.
    At least the amendment wouldn’t have been a issue and the SC wouldn’t have been involved in the first place.

  10. Timothy Kincaid
    May 24, 2009

    But if our coward of a governor had signed the legislative bill the FIRST time or the second, the marriage issue would have more resembled what happened in NH and ME.

    Actually, Regan, nothing would have been different with Arnold’s signature. The legislature couldn’t overturn Prop 22. That required the courts.

  11. RK Wright
    May 25, 2009

    Regan DuCasse, If the legislature had passed a law, it would have had no affect on prop 8 being put on the ballot. Amendments to the state constitution can still be put on the ballot, even if there is an existing law that states the opposite of that proposed amendment.

    Even if the legislature and the governator had agreed on the issue and had codified it in law, it does not take away the right of the “people” to put an amendment on the ballot.

  12. Scott P.
    May 25, 2009

    I will never understand why California has such a simple process for amending it’s constitution. It’s so difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution, and so it is in most states, that most are easily understandable, but California’s is now over 700 pages! That’s ridiculous. It needs to be reworked, as does our budgeting process. Prop. 13 has wreck havoc and needs to be repealed, along with Prop. H8.

  13. Jason D
    May 25, 2009

    Timothy,
    Actually, if Wikipedia is accurate(I know, I know) it’s actually the people who have to overturn prop 22: (bold is mine)

    Central to many subsequent disputes over Prop 22′s effect is a distinction between statutes enacted by the legislature and initiative statutes enacted directly by the electorate. The legislature is free to amend or rescind its own enactments, but voters must approve any attempt by the legislature to amend or repeal an initiative statute unless the initiative itself states otherwise.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000)

    This wording, at least to me, makes it appear that Prop 22 since it was a voter initiative can only be overturned by the voters. What a bizarrely bad way to run government.

  14. Timothy Kincaid
    May 25, 2009

    Jason D,

    Yes, you are correct. The action by the legislature and the Governor (had he signed it) could not overturn Prop 22. It could only be reversed by the voters.

    Or, as in this case, by the courts. As it was found to be in violation of the state Constitution, it is invalid and needs no action by the voters.

  15. Matt
    May 26, 2009

    He’s going to be in for a hot reception in LA tomorrow…

    Can he make it through a presser without reacting to this? YES HE CAN!!! :P

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop