The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Dispiriting Cont.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

farensultanaasa — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:48:22 -0000

Cheapautoinsurance.Com is the the majority trendy and better reduced sedan insurance around the earth. This Cheapautoinsurance charge very little money if you compare with other. You get something done not control to compensate from top to toe consequences meant for your sedan insurance as well as this company provides paramount quality service. This is a fully endanger gratis service. You will at this instant be able to compare sedan insurance speech marks from all the top sedan insurance companies please get nearer to our spot

cheap
auto insurance

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

farensultanaasa — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:02:10 -0000

MikiPro Ltd specializes in “Ex-Demo” and “Ex-Lease” IT equipment. We source, install and indiscriminate almost all IT equipment. No affair pardon? Your IT needs are we boast you covered. If you are looking intended for on-site hardware and software repairs/maintenance, servers up-to-the-minute or back up hired hand, head waiter parts, head waiter support, back up hired hand laptops and desktops, or hardly data backups and security we will be able to meet up your needs. Please visit our position and knowing many more intended for Miki pro.

servers Auckland

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

BobSF_94117 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:18:22 -0000

Talking to 13% of the population IS important when that group is one of the most homophobic groups in America. And it's even more important when the group is a pillar of the Democratic Party. Gay rights are only going to move forward on a national level when the Democratic Party can unite around the issue and push progress past the certain opposition of the GOP.

You may not be impressed by Obama's words, but was among the very first to say them, YEARS AGO, to an audience which needs to hear them.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

Brixtonville — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:08:10 -0000

That was the position of the gay community at large for a long time.

The problem was neither Democrats nor Republicans would settle for it. We offered the solution; keep your sacred word and give us civil rights. Very few politicians on either side were willing to push for that compromise. There were plenty who said they backed the idea. How many bills were introduced? How many Congressmen and Senators co-sponsored? How many survived committee?

The answer, simply, is not enough. Lots of lip service, very little action. That generation's battles were somewhat more pressing; the gay community had to deal with the HIV/AIDS crisis, had to deal with basic discrimination laws. It's not surprising that while due process was important to them, their energy was not so all-pervasive as to push them forcefully into that arena.

Now there's a new generation of politically active people who grew up watching these crises. They asked for equality and got DADT. They asked again and got DOMA. Now we're asking and we're not taking excuses anymore. We just want equal rights; it's the fundamentalist (and pseudo-fundamentalist) politicians who force the issue as gay marriage. If they want to fight on that battlefield so be it. We'll win eventually, and all of them will be remembered as the segregationists of our time.

Just remember, there was a time when all we wanted was "almost". Now almost is no longer good enough.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

Juba — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:21:03 -0000

What a great post.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

michael c. — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:39:01 -0000

Gay marriage should not be the third rail for Obama. He should come clean. A law professor specializing in the constitution knows that the courts will eventually give our society this crucial absolute equality and he's been willing for the courts and the judges to take the heat. I love Obama but it has always seemed the weasel expedient and easy way to let this happen without even stating aloud (and often) that he feels this is the right way for this right to come to American life.

Instead he settles for the incremental spread of it from state to state. It might be the right way to do this but I wish he'd say it out loud. it might even be the harder way to get to gay marriage but I wished he speak to it.

Its a right I'd like him to work toward out loud and in front of the cameras. to take a risk with the right end of the middle instead of just risking the faith we have in him along this left side of the middle.

In some ways I guess he spoke a little to it yesterday.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

Lemmy Caution — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:39:08 -0000

Um, what's need isn't berating. I never should have fired my copy editor.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

Lemmy Caution — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:34:38 -0000

The idea that Obama should be mobilized to nag at Black churches for taking a position most of the other churches are taking is risible. I'm disappointed with Obama's weak stance on a lot of matters of conscience, but what's needed is berating: it's leadership. Historically, legislative change leads cultural change. It's counter-intuitive, it tweaks our sense of the vox populi, but it is true. Even the GOP now gives more than mere lip service to the principles of the Civil Rights Act. No one is seriously interested in re-criminalizing inter-racial marriages, even though they were unpopular in the mid-20th century. Having the president fulfill a fantasy of comeuppance by speaking to black congregations about gay rights would not only be a waste of his time, it would be misguided and create a natural defensive reaction.

I think the truth is that Obama needs to be pushed and embarrassed into following what I truly suspect is his conscience in the matter, and producing and pushing the appropriate policy. Right now, we are looking a Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, a scattered and bewildered Republican party, a populace that is more concerned about economics and security than about traditional definitions of matrimony: for the love of Pete, when would their possibly be a better opportunity to actually create this change? I think he's so caught up in the goal of avoiding culture wars (an laudable goal, I think) that he's lost some backbone.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

Symposia — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:26:51 -0000

Oh! And that includes going to our epicenters--the Black Church--and telling the people in the pulpit that love is a two-way street. Whether you want to acknowledge this or not, but most Black churches are homophobic. It isn't because we're bad, but because we do not know any better. Time will change our hearts, but only when people talk, come out of the closet, and learn to view things through the prism of others.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

Symposia — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:23:45 -0000

I am from Atlanta, GA. On any given day, you drive along I-95 and you will find a billboard that reads, YOU CAN BE CURED! Next to that is a grinning Bishop Eddie Long, the influential pastor of a prominent church. The brother grins slyly in the same haunting way the eyes of T.J. Eckleburg haunts Nick Carraway in "The Great Gatsby." But to many of us, as a people, that sign is the truth, brother man, and you need to quit with that "why you staring at us" talk. Because we more than any other group, should be at the forefront of civil rights. We were the 3/5 Compromise, we were the Persons in the 14th Amendment, and we were the eyes staring up at that prize in the '60's. So, yeah, we do need a reality check as far as I'm concerned. I humbly submit the path to freedom runs through Black America. As a straight man, I have an obligation to tell our people the truth. As does the President.

Just my two cents.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

abnormally attracted to sin — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:34:10 -0000

I'm a bit confused here. What do you want Obama to tell black churches? And why do you think, even if he said whatever you want him to say to these church's, and the ministers turn around and repeat word for word to their congregations, that these people will follow lock step?

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

Eduardo — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:54:56 -0000

One other thing about Obama telling Black churches to be more accepting of gay people. I would love for anyone to come out with one single quote of the Prez talking in a Black church explaining why some in the Black community should be more accepting of gays. It has been --to my recollection-- a perfunctory mention of the issue.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

dmf — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:49:35 -0000

It would be helpful to have some more data on these issues as the different AA churches are really so different on these matters. And it's not clear what makes a church an AA church, Obama's old church for instance is largely a 'main-stream', read not non-denominational evangelical, white church. Down here in Memphis, a land of many many churches, I believe that in all of the churches commonly known as black churches the leadership are openly against not just gay rights but the very existence of gay people, as opposed to what they see as people possesed by "perversions. We do have one very brave black woman preacher Sonia Walker who openly stands up for gay folks but she had to find a home in a liberal white church. Not sure if this is bringing any light to the conversation or just more noise but the only time that you will see white republicans from the burbs on the steps of our local govt building agreeing with inner city black clergy is when they are fighting gay civil rights and statistically representative or not it's quite jarring.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

Eduardo — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:47:14 -0000

AMEN. AMEN. AMEN.

I would love to have put what I think in those words. This is the heart of the issue, people.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

Eduardo — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:42:46 -0000

Totally agree. And he had gone to Black churches to talk about tolerance towards gay people, not really full equality. What a courage! He knows soooo much better. Honestly I get the impression that he doesn't do this for Black people consumption but for the larger public consumption: Oh my God, how brave of Obama, talking tolerance to teh Blacks!

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

Eduardo — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:37:42 -0000

I don't believe that Obama believes what he says he believes. This stuff about God, etc. That bothers me, yes, but then I remember he is a politician.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

Eduardo — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:35:46 -0000

Sorry but Chicago University's Constitutional Law Professor knows full well what is the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

brucds — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:14:27 -0000

FWIW, your larger point is probably the most important thing for all of us to remember. I heard the man himself make it to a group of supporters in SF two years ago, when we looked like a bunch of dreamers, and it's one of the things that committed me even more to his campaign and what I've told everyone who whines about his limitations, as though his mission is to make each and every one of us feel fulfilled. He wasn't bullshitting that he was going to be able to do all of the heavy lifting; he wasn't bullshitting that the Oval Office wouldn't constrain what he'd like to do - he'd told us he'd make sure the door was open but it was really on us.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

radiofreerome — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:10:16 -0000

It's more than likely that Obama's abandonment by his own father explains his attitude.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

radiofreerome — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:09:28 -0000

The sad thing is that black males and gay males have too much in common to get along. Both are often (usually?) subject to authoritarian/abusive/absent/castrating (Hi, Joe Jackson!) fathers. We deal with the situation oppositely. The black man identifies with his abuser as a matter of survival; the gay man annihilates all he has in common with his abuser as a form of vengeance.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

brucds — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:09:24 -0000

"lends credence to the idea that we are the most in opposition to it. Which I think is false."

Check this Pew Poll out and make of it what you will...

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/868/gay-marriage

Scroll down to "opposition declines in many groups" and "views on civil unions"

Maybe there's something wrong with the polling data - I'm no expert and I'd love see a couple of others or some "Nate Silver" shit to sort this out. In the larger scheme of things, this is a generational issue more than anything else and the opposition is doomed.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

abnormally attracted to sin — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:00:22 -0000

First time commenter, long time reader. I have to begin by saying how much I absolutely love this blog, and I consider the comments section to contain some the livelieist most enlightened debate I have seen on the web anywhere. Now to get down to the rub of it all.

I agree/disagree with your part of your post Ta. Obama should attempt to speak to a greater segment of the population than just the 13% AA segment of it, particularly on the issue of civil rights for gays and lesbians. In fact I think Obama may be adding to the stereotype that AA are more bigoted (or the most bigoted, if you read right wing talking points) people in American society. The idea that AA need a talking to about civil rights for gays and Lesbians more so than others lends credence to the idea that we are the most in opposition to it. Which I think is false. I happen to believe that there is nothing wrong with talking to AA audiences about gay rights, as talking to any audience about gay rights is something that should be done regardless of the make-up of those recieving the message. And lets face it, Obama is the president, if he says something it will ricochet throughought the country. In other words, his message will not be lost on those who happen to have lesser melonin in their skin.

My issue with your post (and its not so much with you as much as it is a constant theme I hear from many) is the concept that Obama has to in particular go out and spread any sort of message on behalf of some group. I know saying this will get me into a lot of trouble here. Every constituency on the left seems to want something from this guy. Yes I know we (err you perhaps, I didn't vote, I'm a marxist) got him elected. But it bothers the hell out me that everyone seems to wholeheartedly believe in what I will call the great man theory in history, politics, whathaveyou. Obama is all of sudden supposed to do this and that for everyone. It should be remembered that througout history, people, the masses have brought about change. Great men have taken credit or been given credit for that change but more often than not it has been everyday folks that have made that change possible. Obama is our servant, we have to make him serve us

It seems to me that the same groups who got the man elected would be best to 1) hold his feet to the fire on the issues he campaigned on, 2) continue spreading whatever your groups message is to other elected officials, 3)take your message into traditionally hostile areas and change hearts and minds, 4) be the change you believe in. I don't know, I just get sick and tired of hearing people whine about what Obama is not doing. The next four to eight years is a excellent window of oppurtunity for the left to push through everything that we care deeply about. We know Obama has a sympathetic ear for our concerns. I would argue that our issues are too important to be left up whit and whimsy of one man. We must do it ourselves even if he takes credit.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

brucds — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:57:53 -0000

Interestingly, according to the polling I've seen the biggest and most dramatic shift in attitudes on gay marriage and civil unions in recent years has been among Catholics, including Hispanics. They're about evenly divided on the issue according to a Pew Poll last year - shifting 14 percentage points in 4 years. That's incredible. I won't go into the weeds on racial breakdowns because I don't want to raise hackles here. But the key demographic that need their asses kicked and/or their minds opened on this issue in order for us all to move forward, according to that poll is "men." Who knew ?

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

eltoro — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:43:43 -0000

Rikyrah,

Going into a Rick Warren-type church would be a waste of his time. He would be more useful going to a predominantly white or Hispanic Catholic parish in Chicago or South Bend, and telling the Irish, Italian, Polish, Mexican or Puerto Rican parishoners about the fundamental unfairness at the heart of the anti-gay marriage movement that goes counter to the spirit of true Christianity. The same applies to politically moderate white evangelicals in Jim Wallis-type churches throughout the Midwest.

Obama doesn't need the Rick Warrens of this country to help gay marriage become a reality, if he can get the support of Jim Wallis types and Cardinal Joseph Bernandin or even Cardinal Francis George types.

Re: Dispiriting Cont.

brucds — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:27:41 -0000

"Take it to that vast 87 percent that you now rep for, and tell them the good news. That would be a profile in courage."

He did. Yesterday. On your teevee...

Whatever your cavils, that was a historic and very important moment.