Marriage News Watch and the last week of early voting

The nation's eyes are on North Carolina during this final week of the primary. Many marriage discrimination and equality battles are pending for November. We get to set the stage. If a southern state defeats this discrimination, then all the anti-discrimination campaigns will have a legitimate claim to viability, which is key for recruiting talented staff, volunteers, and donors. To steal a line from HKonJ, this is a movement, not a moment.

Give by Thursday, in time to help with the TV ad buys:
http://www.protectallncfamilies.org/donate

Comments

OFA and DNC are MIA on A1

Anyone seeking support for Obama for America (OFA) or the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for the remainder of 2012 will be reminded of how the DNC and OFA sat on their hands as Amendment One proceeded to the ballot in NC.

 

I received two emails from Obama staffers in North Carolina

They're "reaching out" to bloggers, etc., etc., etc. I'm not sure what they want to ask me, but I have one thing I want to ask them ... which is exactly the question you've raised here.

And I'm sure it won't be long before one of their fundraising mavens calls to ask if we'll help by hosting an event.

Not gonna happen.

Public Policy Polling

is an extremely reliable polling firm. That is unfortunate for those of us who care deeply that this ill-conceived amendment be defeated. It is unfortunate for Obama, too, since NC is a key state, and the message being delivered by PPP is that the majority favor the amendment. If Obama is not re-elected, he can do NOTHING to advance civil rights for homosexuals. If Romney is elected, he will double down on the damage Bush inflicted on this country by his Supreme Court nominations. Recently, er, that is, months ago, Username offered an extremely weak and shortsighted analysis of why it should not matter that the President appoints Supreme Court Justices. (I was too disgusted to respond) Anyway, at that time S/he made the "point" that since Obama took office, thus and such and oh-so-many Supreme Court decisions favored regressive, conservative policies. What Username seems not to have grasped is that the Bush years gave a majority vote to regressive conservatives. That's what you get to do when you're President -- name Supreme Court Justices. What you do NOT get a chance to do is "fire" Supreme Court Justices that the last administration appointed.

So, sure, proceed as usual with blathering about how you're not going to help Obama, and proceed, as usual, to shoot your own interests down by your "principled" stand against any decision that you don't like. But the truth remains that Obama's presidency is still the best hope this country has. And if you haven't been able to discern that his administration favors promotion of civil rights for all citizens, you haven't been paying attention.

random side note

If Obama is not re-elected, he can do NOTHING to advance civil rights for homosexuals.

This is a random side note, and something that someone of good intention would easily not know, but there is a general preference for LGBT or gay to homosexual, just because the right wing has made special emphasis on demonizing that word, usually emphasizing the sex part embedded within it in the same sentence as saying protect our children!

Thanks Jake

It did feel odd, using the word, though I couldn't put my finger on why. I appreciate your pointing out the preferred terminology and will use it instead.

I hope we'll see the day soon when the idea of referring to a person by specifying his or her sexuality will be seen as odd and irrelevant.

Same song, different verse

If Obama is not re-elected, he can do NOTHING to advance civil rights for homosexuals.

Wow! That same NOTHING that Obama's doing now?

Obama can't even lift his pen for two seconds to sign a non-discrimination executive order.

And I'll live just fine without another Kagan-type replacing the most liberal member of the court.

You're welcome to enjoy your Stockholm syndrome to the regressive regime known as the Obama administration. It's just not for me.

 

The lady's got it right. You are the outlier

CHeck out the endorsements link from this site.

Your overly slanted viewpoint on President Obama flies in the face of facts. On this issue, you present just like winger global warming deniers.

Citing an endorsement from HRC is laughable

Even those Villager captives are criticizing Obama's failure to sign the executive order.

HRC endorsed Obama a year ago. Seriously, a year ago. They have no credibility.

Their new CEO may change that this summer, but until then....

Bwahahahaha

 

Supreme Court

There's this syndrome called willful blindness. You've got it.

The Court has moved to the right under Obama

If you've got an argument that trading Stevens for Kagan wasn't a move to the right, I'd love to hear it.

Will be offline till this evening though.

 

Ridiculous

The Court has moved to the RIGHT under Obama? If you're serious, you're sadly delusional.

When you decide to formulate some reason

... that Kagan has been more liberal than Justice Stevens, feel free to write about it.

 

Your point is is rather dull. Any judge who could get past

a republican philibuster would move the court to the right. Really not a lot of depth to your thinking at times.

Thank you for acknowledging

... that Obama replaced Justice Stevens with a more conservative jurist.

You get extra points for excusing Obama's conservative actions by blaming them on an historic Democratic Senate majority.

 

Hardly a "historic" majority

At the time of her approval there were 57 Dems and 2 Inds who caucused with the Dems, so no, NOT historic and NOT enough votes to overcome a Rep. philibuster. Not even close to historic as Dems had 60+ senators from '59 - '69.

By this time . . .

persondem, you're a more patient person than I . . .because by this time I can't imagine why anything this idiot has to offer by way of commentary actually rates a response.