Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Belated Slogging


Thank G-d for Annie Wagner.

Posted by Dawgson | April 10, 2008 11:18 AM

Once again the LGBT crowd gets "triangulated" by Clinton.

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 10, 2008 11:25 AM

Oh Obama is triangulating on gay rights as surely as Clinton is, he just draws his triangle differently. But the effect is the same: no marriage for us.

Posted by chicagogaydude | April 10, 2008 11:33 AM

yes, but states have ALWAYS held marriage rights. is overturning DOMA and making marriage controllable at the federal level really doable? is it really a good idea to bring marriage under federal control? i'm totally with clinton on this, even though i think it'll make the path to us calling ourselves "married" a little longer. it'll be the most copasetic-with-the-constitution way to do it.

the thing about obama is that change from the federal government just doesn't happen that fast. he can't just whip the states rights away from them to make something the way we want it, because we're too impatient to work on the nation-wide culture shift that's going to have to come in order for gay marriage to really pass and be protected--no president should have that kind of power. not even an idealist president whose ideals i agree with.

Posted by kim | April 10, 2008 11:50 AM

ummmmm Erica DOES mention the Advocate article. It's the first paragraph of the quoted section. In fact, the paragraph could've been deleted to make the quote look even more anti-obama, but it wasn't. I think you're being a little to harsh on ECB, Annie.

Posted by Cook | April 10, 2008 12:04 PM

@4: Uh, overturning the federal DOMA would in no way "put marriage rights under federal control." They weren't under federal control before DOMA, remember? And lots of states, including Washington, have their own DOMAs to deal with. All retaining the states' rights provision does is provide a rock-solid excuse protecting states that, in the hypothetical future, refuse to recognize gay marriages that other states have already recognized. In my opinion, marriage should not be a condition you pass into and out of as you move from state to state. States will go ahead and refuse to recognize gay marriages anyway (as they currently do for same-sex marriages in MA), but at least they won't have the federal government's explicit blessing to do so.

You're confused.

Posted by annie | April 10, 2008 12:06 PM

@5: "Met with" is quite vague (and doesn't include a link); and the Politico article was published before the Advocate interview even went up online. I think it's reasonable that people might not have known about the Advocate interview, but maybe all Slog readers have your eagle eyes.

Posted by annie | April 10, 2008 12:16 PM

It's also, we should note, his second Advocate interview. I'd guess the original post referred to the first one.

Posted by tsm | April 10, 2008 1:03 PM

@3 - not according to the AP wire story I sent to the Stranger today with the subject SlogTip ...

Face it, a vote for Clinton is a vote for DOMA and do-nothing "oh it's not convenient I'll get to it in a few terms" more of the same behavior.

Real Presidents don't "ask" the military, they ORDER the military to implement a change. Any ex-military person knows that.

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 10, 2008 3:57 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).