Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Email of the Day | The Endz of an Era »

Monday, September 22, 2008

I Know, I Know…

posted by on September 22 at 15:55 PM

We’re not supposed to criticize Obama for throwing traditional Democratic constituents under the bus because the alternative is one hundred billion times worse. But come on … any Buse-outing, Brad Pitt-praising, homo agenda-supporting liberal ought to be concerned that the Democratic presidential candidate is about to kick off a “Faith, Freedom and Values” tour featuring none other than Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec, who recently wrote an op/ed, titled “Should California amend its Constitution? Say ‘no’ to the Brave New World” for the San Francisco Chronicle supporting Prop. 8—the measure that would ban gay marriage in California:

Maybe it is enough to say, as many do in conversation, that it merely re-secures a millennia of tradition and common sense. The initiative will restore to the people what was wrongfully taken from them: the right of self-governance and respect for the marital institution. […]

Beyond correcting the court’s disregard of the separation of powers, insisting upon preserving the link between marriage and procreation: 1) promotes the orderly continuation of the species; 2) avoids the uncertainties of single-gender effects on children (most parents readily recognize the distinctive contributions of male and female in child rearing); and 3) takes respectful account of the difficulties of accommodating religious freedom that arise subsequent to the legal acceptance of same-sex marriage.

He goes on and on in that vein, regurgitating disproven concerns about gay marriage as “a contributing cause to the decline of families with natural children,” repeating the tired old “every child needs a mother and a father” canard, and likening gay couple’s claim that marriage is a right to “a claimed universal right to access to genetically engineered children.”

So, Dan, if you’re still wondering why Obama hasn’t come out against Proposition 8… You might want to take a look at his surrogates.

RSS icon Comments


“My problem with all this is, how how can we have a Sarah Palin running for vice president and yet [Southern Baptists] don’t think a woman can be a preacher?” asked Brody.

Sheryl Brady, the 48-year-old pastor of The River Church, was featured among four other women pastors on the cover of Gospel Today, a Christian lifestyle publication based in Atlanta.

The article, titled “Women Pastors: Breaking the Glass Ceiling,” was pulled from the shelves of LifeWay Christian stores because it upset its owner, the Southern Baptist Convention.

Southern Baptists have for years opposed women in church leadership roles. In 2000, they made it formal when they amended their statement of faith, — the Baptist Faith and Message — to say that the position of church pastor is limited to men. That put the 16-million-member denomination at odds with most mainline Protestant denominations, including a growing segment of Pentecostal denominations, which have ordained women for years.

Sarah Palin herself is a Pentecostal believer.

Southern Baptists are among the Republican Party’s most loyal constituents.

Posted by chicagogaydude | September 22, 2008 4:08 PM

Obama came out against Proposition 8 months ago, Erica.

Posted by whatwhat | September 22, 2008 4:11 PM

It's a big tent, yo. Some people are for marriage rights. Some aren't. Deal.

Posted by Balt-O-Matt | September 22, 2008 4:22 PM

It's funny what happens when Obama makes good on his pledge to work with people who disagree with him. It's like everyone expected that would involve meetings with people who like both hip AND hop, or reaching across the divide to Frappuccino drinkers, no matter how distasteful that sounds.

To me what he meant was that he would work with people who disagreed over really big things, like gay marriage. At first I didn't want to accept that, but I think it comes with the Obama package. Hillary was more of a my-way-or-you're-fired kind of gal, which is probably why she's not on the ticket.

Posted by elenchos | September 22, 2008 4:22 PM

It would be one thing if Obama had ever (1) indicated any particular support for Prop 8, or (2) let Kmiec use the tour as an opportunity to spout antigay rhetoric. Has he? Given that the answer is no, why is it so awful that he be seen in public with someone who disagrees with him on something? Should he never share a stage with, say, a pro-life politician?

Posted by tsm | September 22, 2008 4:23 PM

Get over yourself Erica. Are you the "oversighter"? Keep the Palin columns comin'. Is she on record saying that the faithless scientists invented this whole "dinosaur" hoax?

Posted by Raven | September 22, 2008 4:26 PM

Kmiec has a right-wing Republican background. He is also Catholic, a demographic that some believe Obama will have trouble with. Trotting him out on this tour sends two messages:

1. Hey Catholics! It's OK to vote for Obama!
2. Even social conservative Republicans are supporting Obama!

Now, it's debatable whether those two messages will resonate among Catholics and Republicans who are still on the fence about McCain, but the fact remains that Obama is against prop. 8 and firmly pro-choice. The decision to include Kmiec is pure political theater, aimed at single-issue Catholic voters and right-leaning undecideds.

Posted by Hernandez | September 22, 2008 4:28 PM

Liberals must be prepared to make some compromises if we're ever going to put someone in the white house.

Posted by Sean | September 22, 2008 4:29 PM

@6. Please get with the program. They aren't dinosaurs; they're Jesus Horses.

Posted by Balt-O-Matt | September 22, 2008 4:33 PM

Lets not forget that in an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, BHO said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." Soooo... Tell me again how that's dramatically different from McCain's position? Hell, it practically parrots Palin's position on Abortion...

let me help you understand that...

"I do believe that ... marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." -Barack Obama

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | September 22, 2008 4:34 PM

does having someone working on his campaign mean obama unequivocally shares their beliefs? is trolling for christian voters the same thing as throwing the gays "under the bus"?

it's called "campaigning." nothing to see here.

Posted by brandon | September 22, 2008 4:34 PM

We’re not supposed to criticize Obama for throwing traditional Democratic constituents under the bus because the alternative is one hundred billion times worse.

but you just can't help yourself can you?

If you're not for Obama, say so. If you just need to spew negatives anyway, then end the phony posturing.


Posted by enough | September 22, 2008 4:34 PM


DO: Balance the program with a pro-homo-rights Straight Black Preacher (like Michael Eric Dyson) who can say "even if some of us disagree about the particulars of this one issue, we do agree we are all God's Children and inclusive of all points of view."

DON'T: Make the mistake they made last October, see

Posted by Andy Niable | September 22, 2008 4:34 PM

Oh, yeah, Obama is against Prop 8...except he revealed his opposition to an LGBT political club in San Francisco. Bravo!

That statement proves that Obama knows his audience. It is not evidence of his integrity. Today's news is a McClurkin flashback, I'd say. Didn't he learn anything from that blunder? Didn't he already apologize for that foolishness?

He has never said anything else publicly, clearly, or emphatically about his opposition to Prop 8. And he his apologists are legion...just check the comments, ECB, as I'm sure you did.

It is perfectly acceptable to heterosexual Obama supporters that he goose step in sync with religious zealots that vow to restrict the equal protections of LGBT citizens. It's not their citizenship that is being restricted year after year. Most of those Obamaphiles haven't even bothered educating themselves about the wonder they don't find it important...besides, it's not their problem.

It's all just a game...see! He doesn't really mean it. Just like the wire tapping and the off shore oil drilling and the Wall Street bailout and the (post election) back peddling on health care reform. He has to look like an asshole in order to get elected. The rapture will come in January 2009.

Nothing matters to Democrats that think their work is done simply because of the suffix "- D".

There is nothing more inspiring than the profiles in courage of today's electorate and their political leaders.

Would anyone have guessed 50 years ago after the Brown decision that the first black man likely to be President would find himself incapable of explaining a position in favor of equal protections?

Posted by patrick | September 22, 2008 4:35 PM

except, of course, he has come out against Proposition 8.

ECB, don't let facts get in the way of your Obama bashing.

Posted by truthiness | September 22, 2008 4:35 PM

If Obama lets the republicans make this election about gay marriage, he will lose.

Posted by yuiop | September 22, 2008 4:37 PM

"...throwing traditional Democratic constituents under the bus..."

I thought we talked about this. It's only 4:30pm and this is the 8 billionth time I've read this expression today on the internet. Paul Constant should fashion a jar in the Stranger office that gets a dollar every time this phrase gets pooped out into a slog post. After a few days, you can use the money to go buy a communal thesaurus for the office.

Posted by manbaby | September 22, 2008 4:37 PM

@14, what, exactly would you expect to gain from Obama making repeated loud and well-publicized calls opposing this particular state ballot initiative?

Seriously, what?

Posted by tsm | September 22, 2008 4:39 PM

patrick, did you just arrive from another planet?

it seems you have no conception whatsoever about how politics works.

obama is a political animal. that's a good thing. it means maybe the democrats will win.

and your whining about the first black candidate not being versed on civil rights is offensive, pathetic, and borderline racist.

Posted by right | September 22, 2008 4:40 PM

Never heard of the guy, but looking around I found accounts of a debate at a Chicago tavern between Kmiec and openly gay U of Minn. constitutional law prof Dale Carpenter. Carpenter posted about and linked to Kmiec's "kind and generous" account of the debate at Slate: - after reading this, though I disagree with him Kmiec doesn't seem like any sort of monster. It's not hard to see the sense of Obama including Kmiec, a longtime Republican White House insider, dyed-in-the-wool Catholic constitutional law professor who has endorsed him and has publicly urged anti-abortion single-issuers to look past it and get behind Obama on moral grounds.

Posted by tomasyalba | September 22, 2008 4:41 PM

Obama is a Willard like character. He has this really sketchy past, and is almost entirely an unknown. I imagine him hiding inside a wall that his mom boarded him up into, scheming to show the world!

Obama is weird because he grew up sort of privileged, then thrust himself into un-privileged situations, and then said "see, look at the injustice"!? What normal person would do such a thing? Most impoverished or lower income people who got money would leave and never come back. And they're smart!

Posted by John Bailo | September 22, 2008 4:44 PM

the ends justify the means. full, legal gay marriage (which will be the world's biggest anticlimax when finally allowed - seriously, marriage is archaic) cannot happen unless a democrat is president & the supreme court is re-balanced.

Posted by max solomon | September 22, 2008 4:46 PM


dear patrick. I am straight. I have "educated" myself about your issue. I believe in marriage equality.

but you are WRONG WRONG WRONG if you think Obama should take a strong stand on this now. Wrong issue at the wrong time. If that makes me some sort of ignorant gay hater, fine. I can take it. Now go do some research on wedge issues in swing states. It's offensive to ME that you'll throw away the election by handing the GOP a divisive issue they can't wait to exploit.

Understanding the bigger picture doesn't make us anti gay. In fact this is going to help you a lot more than your own actions. The militant attitude must feel good but it's the results you should care about.

Posted by straight | September 22, 2008 4:47 PM

@2 Thanks!
Erica, Please correct your post. You are in error.

Posted by crazycatguy | September 22, 2008 5:09 PM

John you are projecting again. Don't make me lock you in the basement again. Now apologize to the good people of slog.

And honey if you are good when you watch "The Factor" tonight I'll make you toast just the way you like it - white bread with the crust cut off.

Oh, and honey the neighbors called, their cat Mr. Whiskers is missing - you haven't been experimenting again have you?

Posted by John Bailo's Mother | September 22, 2008 5:10 PM

I guess I should just go sit in the appropriate area at Woolworths and wait for you educated and courageous Democrats to find a way to talk about my citizenship.

Is it borderline racist to believe that someone with the education of a constitutional scholar whose parents were interracial should have the understanding and position to stand up for the equal protections of a minority group?

Really? That is racist? By that standard, is it not then homophobic for you to say that now is not the right time for me and my family and my friends to be considered just as much of an American citizen as you are?

Aren't i just as much of a citizen as you?

Are you being denied equal protections?
Are you allowed to sponsor your spouse for immigration?
Are you being subjected to ballot initiatives and amendments and political scapegoating for no cause?

Understanding the bigger picture should make you understand that the man that wants to be President ought to be able to defend the Constitution for all citizens.

Obama has no problem addressing my community, asking us for money, asking us for votes, asking us to work for his campaign. Isn't that horribly embarrassing and problematic for him?

Isn't he already being branded as a leftist homo-lover?

Until he contributes to the No on 8 campaign in words and $ he shouldn't be given a second thought by any LGBT.

Any Democrat that is willing to overlook his pandering to religious zealotry is just another Republican trying to remake the Democratic party into what they used to have before they let the zealots take the party from them.

Go back and fix your own party, compassionate conervatives.

Posted by patrick | September 22, 2008 5:16 PM

If Obama wants to bring an anti-gay campaigner into his big tent, he'll probably still win the LGBT vote, since there really is no alternative. But you can't expect LGBT people to meekly sit in the back row and say nothing. Fuck that. Minority groups that don't or can't stand up for themselves tend to be the first to get thrown under the bus.

I bet there are many anti-gay religious leaders Obama would include in his campaign if he thought he could get away with it.

Posted by blank12357 | September 22, 2008 5:25 PM

Maybe Obama should campaign with David Duke in Ohio and West Virginia so he can improve his showing among the red necks.

Would that be ridiculous?

He - and you - should be less interested in the reaction from right wing anuses that already won't vote for him and instead work to find ways for him to attract even more people to the voting booth.

Carefully choosing words, avoiding obvious issues, and pretending that nobody notices that he is black and that the concept of equal protections was created specificially for the protection of blacks is not going to make anyone vote for him.

If you have your way, he will morph into John Kerry and if you recall correctly, things didn't go very well for her four years ago.

He has nothing to lose by having integrity. WE know he is eloquent enough to speak on controversial topics. He doesn't fool anyone and gets ZERO credit when he goes on his stupid little Jesus circus road shows, like he is about to with his new Prop 8 pal.

Posted by patrick | September 22, 2008 5:37 PM

Dear Douglas Kmiec,
Guess what? Gay and lesbian couples are setting up home and having and raising children together already! Denying them the recognition and protections of marriage because you think society should signal its disapproval of their choices is pointless and cruel.

Posted by banjoboy | September 22, 2008 5:46 PM

@26 You are the one not seeing the "bigger picture." You're just as irrational and illogical and self righteous as the "Jesus show" you oppose.


Small problem -- more people agree with them than agree with you. Lots more people. So if you really believe in making CHANGE not just WHINING, you may want to consider a different approach.

Something a bit softer, open to finding common ground on other issues, using language that's not so judgmental. If it's real results you care about Obama is your guy. Volunteer for him instead of tearing him down. The next prez is going to get at least a couple Supreme Court appointees. Try to focus on that for just a minute, ok?

Posted by open your eyes | September 22, 2008 6:22 PM

funniest thing I read all day:

@28 "He has nothing to lose by having integrity."

Somebody doesn't understand politics.

Posted by naive | September 22, 2008 6:29 PM

Getting Obama in the White House is more important than his particular stance on this issue. Everybody knows that being pro-gay is poisonous in the states where he needs votes the most. If he doesn't come out against prop 8, who gives a flying shit. If he does McCain could spin it out here in Civilization/Dumb Hick combination land and get himself the election.

Posted by The CHZA | September 22, 2008 6:51 PM

I'm with Patrick all the way. The left has no backbone: we're so afraid of holding our candidates accountable that they give in time and again on the issues that we care about. We gave the Democrats incredible sweeps into the House and Senate in 2006 on the promise they would end the war. where are we now? no closer to the end of the war; it has, in fact, been escalated and expanded with a "surge".

don't forget that obama won't end the war. He hasn't proposed to withdraw all American troops.
See Naomi Klein on the subject:

Now is the time that we need to build the challenges to Obama that will draw him to the left, where I believe his heart is. But he's given in on a lot of key issues (FISA/telecom immunity reinforces Bush's legacy accomplishment of unprecedented expansion of executive power into our homes) and now he's building his base outside the LGBT-friendly community--meaning that he's subject to antigay pressure.

It is our responsibility to make sure Obama has the backbone to resist this: that means openly discussing his shitty Walmart-lover economic advisors, his record on the environment, and his antigay clergy friends.

Keep up the journalism, Erica. This kind of post is exactly what we need, not more rah rah obama shit. We're shaping the next 4 to 8 years right now, so let's challenge the man we've invested so much hope in!

Posted by tt | September 22, 2008 8:17 PM

patrick doesn't get politics is an understatement.

patrick would rather have mccain president and his righteousness intact than give a little to save the country. are you gay first and human second?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 22, 2008 8:52 PM

I don't care if Obama celebrates my big ole gay life, marriage, one night stand, fleeting infatuation, or whatever. I'm not a victim that needs someone in power to recognize me as a whole person. That's what me and my man I teach our kids

Posted by jackseattle | September 22, 2008 8:53 PM

"Well, sure, McCain may be president and the Supreme Court may have just overturned Lawrence v. Texas, but at least Obama stuck to his principles back in 2008!"

Sound good to you, folks?

Posted by seriously. | September 22, 2008 9:00 PM

does anyone want patrick in the democratic party anyway? go form your own party patrick. see how much it accomplishes in achieving gay rights. perhaps you can also start some suicide bombing attacks starting with the martyrdom of yourself.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 22, 2008 9:07 PM


I call a moratorium on any shit-talking about Obama until the day after Election Day.

Posted by Middleman | September 22, 2008 9:11 PM

The short-sightedness of the left is amazing sometimes. Yes, it would be great if everyone agreed with us and we could only have to associate with those who came down the same way we did on important issues. It would be wonderful if everyone believed that everyone should be able to marry anyone they wanted and the rest of us should stay the fuck out of it. But that ain't reality. Obama has what is most likely the most progressive position on GLBT issues of any major party nominee in history. No other nominee has been fully committed to overturning DOMA and DADT. Yes, marriage is important and a battle that we will continue to fight (btw, I'm not straight, so suck it Patrick) but we cannot forgo a larger mission over what you perceive to be tepid support for an issue you care about.

I would love if Kmiec would change his mind, but what would you prefer? Having a bigot in the White House (McCain and Palin) or have the "bigot" supporting a person that otherwise is good on our issues, and who supports our candidate on grounds unrelated to the issue you're pissed about. An Obama White House is better on GLBT issues than a McCain White House. More than billions times better even. This isn't even a close call.

And, for those in the GLBT community who won't "touch" Obama because of something like this - you will get EXACTLY what you deserve from a McCain White House and particularly from a McCain Supreme Court. Get over your fucking selves and realize that your pride isn't nearly as important as guaranteeing that when JPStevens or RBGinsburg kick it that there is a Democrat in the White House to appoint their replacement.

Posted by Ed | September 22, 2008 9:45 PM

I think we should shove the entire Constitution up Bellevue Ave's ass if it will help Obama win in November. Who needs the damn thing anyway, right? Every time I bring that up no one has anything to say about's always about me wanting a wedding and whining. Don't any of you know that Prop 8 is not simply about me having a party - it is about declaring an entire class of citizens as unworthy of constitutional consideration AND it is being presented as beauty contest for all to participate in.

And Jackseattle, you say you aren't a victim, yet you are tying yourself - and me and my family and my friends - to the train tracks allowing anyone to run us over: "Here - please feel free to exploit my claim to equal protections. Anyone. Someone. Its ok. I sacrifice myself on the alter of the Democratic Party." I'm a victim? You are a martyr.

Have we forgotten, as others have pointed out, that the track record for these Democratic jack asses that you are so freaking enamored with is worse than shitty? You have a bit too much faith in a group of self interested, self serving, shit the point where you are not even in a position to stand up for what is right, let alone historically just.

If there were more people like you around 40 years ago (and there were plenty) Obama's parents would never have gotten married (because it was illegal and 70% if the population were opposed to it) and they might not have ever produced your saviour.

Unless they were like the rest of you highly responsible and honorable heterosexuals and simply fucked and reproduced outside of marriage - an exercise you freely participate in without second thought and wouldn't give up at the ballot box even if Hubert Humphrey were the candidate du jour.

Just because I believe that my rights are worth fighting for does not indicate my interest in McCain. In fact, your constant pleas about how everyone must be very very quiet...shhhhhh....oh god don't say anything until November more revealing about your lack of character than anything I've ever said in response to Obama's ongoing pandering bullshit that fools no one.

You are all such terrified chicken shit half wits that you would be hard to distinguish from red state morons that believe that the terrorists are out to get them.

You are failing yourselves. If you can't defend constitutional protections for all citizens then you don't really deserve the kind of leader you think you should have.

Am I gay first and human second? That is an excellent question. If I were willing to compromise my citizenship in order to help your candidate win (assuming that he would lose if I didn't) would that make me a better person in your eyes?

Should I abdicate my identity for your comfort? What are you willing to sacrifice for me? Are you sacrificing anything to protect me? Do you have any qualms whatsoever in asking me to wait for justice - a request that MLK Jr spat upon?

Let me ask you this my good and loyal and tolerant heterosexual allies - are homosexuals the only citizens that should sacrifice themselves for you or are there other minority groups that should throw themselves upon the spear for your comfort?

Posted by patrick | September 22, 2008 9:49 PM

no, we're throwing you under the bus because you're petulant child who doesn't have a bone of pragmatism in his body.

no ones asking you to sacrifice yourself, we're only asking you to consider something beyond the self righteous purview of gay rights when you vote.

you aren't a compelling enough person or representative of gays to even warrant the comparison to MLK. Youre more of a Malcom X than anything and a pretty poor one at that.

And really patrick, i know you don't see a difference between republicans and democrats on the most prescient issue for yourself, but theres a world of difference in so many other areas. It's a bit sad that you're no better than those rubes who vote on single issues like gay marriage.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 22, 2008 10:02 PM

patrick, you are an embarrassment to the gay community.

you are much more likely to get your precious wedding if obama is president. MUCH more likely. mccain could delay your wedding for decades.

the more obama is forced to talk about your precious rights, the more likely he loses. and the more likely your wedding is delayed.

that's the way it is. is it fair? no. the 90% of commenters who disagree with you here aren't arguing it's fair. they are arguing it's REAL. REALITY. why is that such a difficult concept for you?

insisting on a strong stand from Obama is exactly what McCain helps. You are doing lots to help McCain. The rest of us will plead with you to shut the fuck up because our rights are at stake too. YOU ARE WRONG. W-R-O-N-G.

and just one small note, comparing the discrimination of blacks (SLAVERY) to the discrimination of gays is offensive and one of the reasons all those Obama voters in CA aren't on your side either. You need to learn how to better infuence people, cause the bitchin' ain't working kiddo.

Posted by you are hurting our cause | September 22, 2008 10:29 PM

@48 there's a big difference between shoving the Constitution up someone's ass and insisting on universal acceptance for gay marriage, something that changes thousands of years of human history in a relatively short and recent timeframe.

And I don't remember any gays being forced into decades of slavery... show some decency. Show some respect for the civil rights movement by putting your own grievances into perspective. The comparison makes you look insensitive.

Fight for your rights all you want... the rest of us are telling you you've got a losing strategy. We're trying to save you from yourself.

Posted by perspective | September 22, 2008 10:39 PM

we are all fighting for his rights, whether he likes the way we do it or not. Dont presume that just because we support gay rights, you get to run the rest of the campaign or make it the singularly most important issue for everyone voting.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 22, 2008 10:43 PM

and WHERE in the Constitution is your right to gay marriage?

excuse me but I seem to remember 4 of the current 9 justices saying very recently that it was constitutional for texas to ban gay sex among consenting adults (to ban SEX AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL).

Constitutional is what they say is Constitutional. That's how it works.

Go ahead, give McCain that perfect little gay marriage soundbite from Obama. You'll feel better.

He'll make a commercial. He'll air it in Ohio. He'll win the election. He'll get two appointees. There is nothing in your arguments that change that outcome.

Then you'll learn the meaning of constitutional, buddy. Then you can cry your pathetic stupid ass all the way to the "spear" of the "altar of the Democratic party" oh ok. you will deserve it for being so unwilling to THINK.

Posted by supreme | September 22, 2008 10:50 PM

I'm going to bed, but I'm just wondering if anyone actually reads some of my (overly long) comments or are the pin heads the only people bothering to respond?

My "precious wedding"..."where in the constitution is my right to gay marriage"..."insisting on universal acceptance of gay marriage"...and references to slavery?!?!?!?

Did I use the word slavery? or did you get confused because I brought up MLK Jr?

Man, I really tapped into a hot bed of lunacy...the Dixicrats live!!

Would I compare my equal protections - read that line very slowly and carefully now, I said my EQUAL PROTECTIONS - to the African American civil rights movement? Yes, I would make that comparison. And I do it not because I want a wedding (actually, I've already had a few of those...don't need another) I say the two are comparable because of what I read on page 73 of "Why We Can't Wait" by MLK Jr where he was writing to religious leaders who were asking him to stop civil disobedience:

"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another mans freedom...Shallow understanding from people of good will if more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

I am wrong to think it is a mistake for Obama to parade around with a religious zealot that wants to strip me of my right to full citizenship? I am wrong to think that Obama should have the decency and courage to make a principled stand in defense of constitutional protections?

You people are going to get just what you ask for in your elected leaders and you won't even understand why it is happening.

Posted by patrick | September 22, 2008 11:20 PM

@46 Desegregation (following, yes, slavery) required mass civil disobedience. Gay marriage does not.

Calm down, stop making epic exaggerations, and think hard about who you want for president. There are only two choices. Then go to work for that person.

Primaries are for shaping the issues and holding them accountable. General elections are for winning no matter the imperfections.

It sounds, from your comments, that you would prefer McCain to win.

Posted by reality called | September 23, 2008 9:08 AM

Erica, like Cassandra of old, you are doomed for speaking truths. For some people Mr Obama can do no wrong. Thus it was and it always will be. There are many of his supporters who simply do not want to hear that he, like other politicians, is willing to pander, prevaricate, and pussy-foot his way into office.

Posted by inkweary | September 23, 2008 1:37 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.