Obama To Be In Los Angeles Day After Decision Day

Jim Burroway

May 22nd, 2009

President Barack Obama will be in Los Angeles on Wednesday, which will be the day immediately following Decision Day. Do you think he can make it through the entire visit without mentioning Prop 8?

[Hat tip: Michael Petrelis]


May 22nd, 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.

Michael Ditto

May 22nd, 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.


May 22nd, 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.

Steve Krotz

May 22nd, 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.


May 22nd, 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.


May 22nd, 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.


May 22nd, 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.


May 23rd, 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.

Regan DuCasse

May 24th, 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.

Timothy Kincaid

May 24th, 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.

RK Wright

May 25th, 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.

Scott P.

May 25th, 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.

Jason D

May 25th, 2009

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.

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.

Timothy Kincaid

May 25th, 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.


May 26th, 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 Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.