Is it time to retire the "They have too much on their plate right now for gay rights" argument?

[JeffreyWilliamson]

Since they apparently have enough time on their hands to work against them?

It's one thing to say that they have too much to worry about to spend time addressing the needs of a specific group of people. As much as I don't like that argument since I'm a member of that group, I do see how the argument can be made. But it's quite another thing entirely when they are able to find time and resources to work against that group's rights after promising to do so much for them.

I'm not saying anyone has made that case today, because if they have I haven't seen it. But I have seen it in the past. Lots of times. Can we all agree at this point that a line has been crossed where this particular argument can no longer be made in defense of the administration's lack of action regarding gay rights?

[BuyingThyme]

1. Gay rights is just too expensive.

[ThomCat]

11. Too Expensive?

:wtf:

You're putting a price tag on equal rights?

Should we put a price on your rights and decide if we want to pay that price? Who decides if we want to "pay" to allow you to have your rights?

Of all the arguments I've heard against equal rights, that is the callous and mercenary.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

15. I'm pretty sure that was just sarcasm on the poster's part...

Since that was essentially the argument the DOJ's legal motion made.

So basically it's the Department of Justice that's putting a price tag on equal rights.

[ThomCat]

20. I hope so.

:(

I would hate to think that anyone hear really, truly believes that rights have price tags on them. Because that always implies that all rights are optional for everybody, and the people in charge can choose at any time which rights to pay for or which to leave on the shelf.

A market driven system for rights... How horrible that would be!

[FiveGoodMen]

2. There never was a time for that.

Passing legislation takes a while, but indicating an intention to do the right thing takes no time at all.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

6. I guess in a way this is what's really eating me alive with this today...

I understand that legislation for all of these things is going to take a long time, and won't be easy to get through.

But they won't say anything about any of it? Prop 8 upheld, nothing. Marriage legalization in several states, nothing. DADT and continuing discharges, nothing. DOMA, well we got that response today.

How much effort does it take for Obama to just say something supportive? Or Gibbs? In front of a camera?

Who's advising them to go about all of this in this manner? It's like they're trying to go out of their way to offend us. I just don't get it...

[RufusTFirefly]

7. Amen, FiveGoodMen! Wonderful statement. Simple and profound

"Passing legislation takes a while, but indicating an intention to do the right thing takes no time at all." -- FiveGoodMen

[timeforpeace]

3. Too much time being spent getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, as promised

But no one mentions that stuff. Seemed like a big deal last November. What happened?

[BuyingThyme]

4. He's staying.

[bvar22]

37. PERMANENT OCCUPATION of Iraq....

...by "Residual Forces".
50,000+ not counting Mercenaries.

Obama has NO intention of withdrawing from Iraq.
If conditions permit, he will draw down some forces, and then give the WAR a new name.
Residual forces will remain in Iraq to:

1) Fight Al Qaeda

2) Train Iraqis

3)Protect American Interests.

If that sounds familiar, it is.
That is the exact same "Mission Statement" as the Bush administration.

[tan guera]

72. What happened?

People didn't vote for Kucinich.  Too many people stood in
Obama's corner in IA.  Nobody listened when Obama said he'd
escalate in Afghanistan and go into Pakistan, invited or not. 

[msongs]

5. the new administration believes in bipartisanship above individual rights? nt

[JeffreyWilliamson]

8. But bipartisanship hasn't gotten them anything...

Look at how the Repugs vote every time.

And he's a constitutional scholar. He knows what equality means.

He could just say something to us, anything. Instead we keep getting stuff like this legal motion today.

[kenny blankenship]

65. Don't say that! Bipartisanship got us the Iraq War + all the funding it needed. Also Patriot Act

and retroactive immunity for telecom assisted warrantless wiretapping, FISA court reach-a-rounds, and taxcuts for the rich. The list is nearly endless.

[ThomCat]

67. Right! Bipartisanship gave us every Republican agenda item!

x(

[LooseWilly]

9. Too much to do to do nothing today instead of what they did.

I know the sentence is confusing. So was the defense of DOMA using Michael Steele's "You just cost me money." argument that was being universally ridiculed some weeks ago.

It's just... mind bottling...

[ThomCat]

13. Universally ridiculed, but someone just made that same argument

up-thread. We can't have our equal rights because they are too expensive. :grr:

[Bjorn Against]

30. That person was using sarcasm, unfortunately the DOJ was not being sarcastic...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5833429

[kath]

31. Thom, please - no one made that argument up above - he/she was quoting the Justice Dept. brief/memo.

[ThomCat]

35. Maybe, maybe not.

That person has made obnoxious arguments in the past, so that might be her personal view. Nothing in the post indicates that she read the DoJ brief, that she was quoting it, or that she was being sarcastic.

Reading her post as sarcasm is a nice way of giving her the benefit of the doubt. Which I'm willing give at this point until more is said.

[Duncan Grant]

10. Touche!

I'm awake and smelling the coffee... :thumbsup:

Recommended.

[billyoc]

12. They're passing cigarrette labeling laws, for shit's sake.

Seems like they've got nothing BUT time on their hands.

[LooseWilly]

44. And they seemed to be able to get to laws about releasing torture photos pretty quick.

"Lickety Split" I believe the term is...

[QC]

46. And they got those truckloads of money to the Wall Street boys toot sweet, you know.

That didn't take long at all.

[LooseWilly]

51. Yeah, I thought that was what GLBT folks was waiting on... but that's done.

Hmm... "what else can we make them wait on? Quick, someone look through the schedule... there's gotta be something... anything's more important...."

[QC]

56. Bo's puppy shots! n/t

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThomCat]

18. We should support the President when his actions warrant support.

We should be criticizing the President when his actions warrant criticism.

We should be paying close attention to what he's doing so that we know the difference.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krispos42]

41. Teddy Roosevelt said...

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else. "

Kansas City Star (1918-05-07)

[ThomCat]

57. I wish a hell of a lot more Democrats valued that kind of attitude.

:loveya:

Our whole party would be healthier if it were so. I never expected that when we regained the Whitehouse we would have such a strong contingent of Loyalists within our party to deal with. :(

Loyalty despite bad ideas accomplishes nothing of value, and it undermines good people who need accurate feedback to stay on a good course.

[krispos42]

70. Yeah. I'm listening to the Thom Hartmann podcasts...

...I'm about six months behind (but catching up!) and contrasting Thom's hope with reality... well, it's less than I hoped.

Being several months behind give you perspective. You know what to listen for.

For example, the only person that predicted Sarah Palin being McCain's veep (at least, of those on Rachel Maddow's and Thom Hartmann's radio show) was Pat Buchanan, and only in passing.


Damn inertia.

[ronnykmarshall]

63. Oh no we can't do THAT!

If we do that we are just putting out "straw-men" and being "perpetually angry people" that's what so many so call "progressives" say here at DU.

BACK OF THE BUS FAGGOTS!!!!

[ThomCat]

64. I can't get to the back of it until I get out from underneight it.

:P

[ronnykmarshall]

66. OKAYYYY!

That's for damn sure!

[Starry Messenger]

22. .

Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82py_wk5vE4

[Skittles]

24. news flash for you

human rights for all is ALWAYS a "pressing issue"

[LostinVA]

25. This Freeper doesn't agree with you -- look

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Theodore Roosevelt

[QueenOfCalifornia]

39. T.R.

would slap you for suggesting that he would ever be a freeper. :)

[LostinVA]

47. I was being sarcastic

But, I think you know me well enough to know that!

[QueenOfCalifornia]

75. I know and I was just joining in

with some sarcasm too.
:D

[Duncan Grant]

26. Insert photo of Barack and Michelle here. n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

29. Sieg Heil!

[QueenOfCalifornia]

32. B.S.

Over reacting?

Nope.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

53. Anyone smell something funny?

Or is it just me?

[QC]

59. Yeah, I smell it too. It's a familiar smell,

one that I have encountered here at least twice before.

[donco6]

62. Yes, familiar but elusive.

Whatever could it be?

[QC]

68. A moment of silence, please...actualproof is no longer with us.

I believe this was at least his third incarnation at DU.

He has more avatars than Vishnu!

[ThomCat]

71. Yay! Thank you, Mods, for deciding that this guy

was blatant enough to tombstone. :woohoo:

[QC]

74. His newest incarnation, NY_CJ, just began his dirt nap

after a mere 47 posts.

[Starry Messenger]

16. Nail meet hammer.

recommend.

[redqueen]

17. I would think so.

The 'saving political capital' / 'chasing moderate or ex-repub votes' arguments*... not so much.



*disclaimer: I'm not saying I think those are good arguments... just that I can see them still being used to try to explain what's going on.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

19. I'm willing to entertain and debate any of the other arguments...

With the exception of the "he's only been in office for 5 months" line, which I think this also sort of throws under the bus.

I even think those debates are valuable to a degree, even though I don't think they are good arguments either. I just think this one is pretty much done in after today.

[LostinVA]

21. +1

[WeDidIt]

23. I can agree with this criticism of the Obama administration. n/t

[Hansel]

69. +1

[Solly Mack]

27. K&R

[Autumn]

28. Well past the time

:kick:

[Dragonfli]

33. I agree - Energy IS being expended on the issue, just on the wrong side of it n/t

[JeffreyWilliamson]

36. Exactly...

And if they have the energy to expend working against equality, then they must have the energy to expend working for it. So why then are they not?

I really, really hope that there is going to be a big enough outcry over this one that they will start to address these issues.

Someone, high up, needs to at a minimum say something about this and the other things that have happened. I'm getting tired of watching and reading the non-answers we're getting.

[Dragonfli]

43. It is almost as If they want to Trade the civil libertarians and gay Americans for the fundy crowd

I don't understand it one bit.
They are abandoning and now fighting AGAINST a large part of their base and the only people they will make happy doing it are the Religious Right fanatics.

Are the Rapture Ready bigots really worth more to this administration than the liberals that brought them to the dance?

I can think of no other way to explain so many of the anti constitutional stances that have been taken of late.

The realization is making me rather angry:mad:

The second time today I feel I have to bring out my favorite John Adams quote

"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."

Americans should not allow themselves to be "wheedled out" of their liberties simply because politicians agree with the bigotry of an insane group of religious fanatics, this administration has no free pass here. They are simply wrong to side with the bigots against the liberties of American citizens!

[Starry Messenger]

50. That's what I'm seeing too.

I guess they decided the Silent Majority was easier to corral. I'm pretty disheartened today.

[Dragonfli]

55. I am disheartened and angry

I will write the best letters I can and send them out as usual, then I am going to turn off the TV and computer and drink heavily by a fire and listen to music until I can forget how crappy things are going if only for a while.

It is hard to feel like you are standing up for what is clearly right and have to fight yet another administration in the process.

I had hoped after the last two elections things would be going better and I would finally have some time for myself.

Yeah - disheartening is the word, that and tired (not looking forward to having to fight another 8 years of "selective" group rights and anti-constitutional sentiment when I had hoped we would put most of That behind us along with Bush)

[tan guera]

73. Why do we have to

go thru 8 years of this? I can't talk about the taboo subject here at DU, nor do I understand why
it's taboo.

[Individualist]

42. That meme should have been retired after the first time it was used.

It never was a valid argument.

[ThomCat]

54. All the Obamatons seemed to think that repeating it often enough

would make it true.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThomCat]

60. My racism?

You're calling me a racist?

:wtf:

[Zenlitened]

61. Wow. I thought everyone knew what the word 'racism' means.

You don't seem to, though.

You really should show a little more respect for history -- the history of real suffering by generations of real people -- and stop throwing that word around so lightly.

[burning rain]

45. The administration could at the very least have used "Stop Loss" to halt....

the expulsion of gays who wished to continue serving from the military. They haven't done diddly-squat so far. I mean, come on; that wouldn't have required a push in congress or anything -- just an executive order.

That said, I'm damn glad Obama's president and pleased to have supported him in the primaries and the general. However much I dislike excessive compromise and seeing cherished goals deferred, I well remember the lessons of the Nader / Gore / Bush fracas in 2000, when our more uncompromising friends told us we should go for Nader because Gore allegedly wouldn't be meaningfully better than Bush. I think it's fair to say that from 2001 to 2009 we all got schooled in the value of pragmatism and patience, while keeping the pressure on Democrats to do the right thing.

It would also be well to spare a thought for the thousands of Americans who will never benefit from this national schooling because they died in a needless war in Iraq.

[LostinVA]

49. Exactly

[Stinky The Clown]

48. They have never had 'too much on their plates' with respect to this VERY SIMPLE ISSUE.

It is clear they don't want to work to pass that

And they don't want to piss off our enemies in the battle for health care.

[donco6]

52. It won't matter. People will still use it.

Mainly because they don't have anything else.