I got a chance to watch the inauguration. Obama's speech was terrific, and the crowd was amazing. The actual oath could have been better. I'm sure the Loon Brigade will harp all over that, but the reality is that Justice Roberts screwed it up and it threw Obama off. The Chief Justice of the United States flubbed the wording of the oath of office.. of the President of the United States.. Christ..
Guess who owns Whitehouse.gov now? Check it..
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples:
President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
That's right..
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell:
Right again!
Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
I'm feeling it...
It wasn't that long ago that the Christian freaks were trying to dehumanize millions of Americans. Today, that's gone.. and the nation moves forward.
I'm sure at some point I'm going to get annoyed with Obama.. I'm sure I'll disagree with some of his policy.. but I'm not going to think that we've got a complete moron for a President. I'm not going to be embarrassed by his stupid frat boy antics.. or cod pieces.. or "nukular".. or back massages for foreign heads of state.. and on and on.
Today.. you can feel that things are different.. as something new and exciting. I got chills..
/adding
Is Rick Warren some kind of jackass or what? He stands exactly opposite of Obama on the issues.. and his "prayer" was a farce.
But did you hear Obama use the words "Non-Believers" in his address?
Yes He Did
/update
A conservative writer captures the feeling..
"The kinder thing to say is that this was an impressive celebration of left-wing patriotism, the sort of thing this country hasn't seen on such a scale in years or even decades. In an essay for Time last year, Peter Beinart observed, with some accuracy, that "conservatives tend to see patriotism as an inheritance from a glorious past," while "liberals often see it as the promise of a future that redeems the past." The inaugural concert was all about the latter sort: The patriotism of Seeger and Springsteen; of white Hollywood and the black church; of Gene Robinson and the Gay Men's Chorus; and of course the Pope of liberal Christianity himself ... I won't say that it was exactly my kind of celebration, but it was the kind of celebration that liberal America has waited an awfully long time to experience. And I would be an ungrateful graduate of many a boyhood Pete Seeger singalong - I know the "radical verses" as well as any Obamaphile - if I didn't feel happy for my left-of-center countrymen in their hour of long-awaited celebration. You can't say that they didn't work awfully hard for it," - Ross Douthat, The Atlantic.
/adding again
That the world approves..
LONDON – The arrival of a new American president triggered joy and jubilation Tuesday in a world made weary by warfare, recession and fear. Bulls and goats were slaughtered for feasts in Kenya, toasts were offered at black-tie balls in Europe and shamans in Latin America chanted Barack Obama's name with reverence.
From Kenya and Indonesia, where Barack Obama has family ties, to Asia, Europe, Africa and Latin America, Obama's inauguration sparked a volcanic explosion of hope for better days ahead.
The ascendance of the first African-American to the presidency of the United States was heralded as marking a new era of tolerance and possibility.
Nelson Mandela, the former South African president who also inspired millions, sent a letter to Obama shortly before his inauguration.
"Your election to this high office has inspired people as few other events in recent times have done," Mandela wrote. "Amongst many around the world a sense of hopelessness had set in as so many problems remain unresolved and seemingly incapable of being resolved. You, Mister President, have brought a new voice of hope that these problems can be addressed and that we can in fact change the world and make of it a better place."
It is true that the United States sets the tone for the rest of the world.. and it means a lot.
16 comments:
I'm not going to lie, I'm torn on whether or not repealing DADT is a good thing to do, mostly because there's very little research that's been done, but other than that I'm really optimisitc. I hate the term "civil union" and wish everyone would just wake up and realize it IS marriage with a different name, so call it that, but w/e. I can deal with it.
Would you agree that the UK, France, Germany, and Israel do not seem to have a problem with openly gay soldiers? As in everything, it's about behavior and not intrinsic characteristics. The same regulaations related to bad behavior for heteros apply to homos as well.
I don't particularly care for the "civil union" term either, but marriage law is state and not Federal. Obama can't dictate how states define it, but it's within his authority to push to have the Federal DOMA law repealed by Congress.
I have always maintained the thought that "marriage" is a religious ceremony. As such the religion should decide to accept or reject same sex marriage. The Gov then added benefits for married couples. To be non-bias the whole "civil union" was created and granted the same rights as married couples. Creating a method of avoiding the religious ceremony.
All in all his address was really good. Two things that I enjoyed the most were the recognition of "Non-Believers", and his comments directed towards the outside world, specifically his words to the Muslim world. I believe his words will make it more difficult for impressionable youths to embrace terrorism.
Michael
If you could only be married at a church I'd agree with you Michael. But you can get married outside by a close friend, or by a judge, or by just about anyone without any reference to any religion.
So long as that option is available to heterosexuals, so should that option be available to homosexuals.
As for the inauguration in general, it sure was an amazing thing to witness. Not sure if news spread outside of DC but there were thousands of ticketed guests that were not able to attend. Thankfully, I was not one of those guests and was one of the last 50 or so allowed to enter. I had several friends who had tickets that were not so fortunate.
After a short jog from security to the capitol I arrived just in time to see the swearing in of both Biden and Obama and Obama's speech.
After the speech the crowds dispersed some and I was able to get pretty close for the last bit of the ceremony. I snapped a pretty great shot of Bush's helicopter leaving just as it rose over the capitol. :)
Here are some of my favorite moments in the speech:
"...we reject as false, the choice between our safety and our ideals..."
"...know that America is a friend of each nation and every man woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity..."
"...our power grows through its prudent use..."
I especially liked this section too:
"To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders."
Steve.
We didn't seem to have a problem conscripting gay soldiers in world war I and II.
If you are argueing for conscription and integration then yes, I think it's has to be done, similar to racial integration in Vietnam. I just think, on the surface, using the military to effect social change. The difference between Europe+Israel is that they accept gays as a culture, whereas we don't.
Conscription? We haven't had a draft since Vietnam.
The military isn't effecting social change. We already have states with same-sex marriage and/or civil unions. It's simply a matter of practicality.
Israel "accepts" gays? Really?
Exactly. We havn't had integration of the military since then either. Then it was blacks and whites, now the question is gays and straights. The question becomes straight forward if you look at forced service, such as Israel, but is much more complicated in all volunteer militaries.
We have some states with same sex marriage, the majority without, and the majority of people in the military against the repealing of DADT. In a volunteer military in which you are already struggling to meet personel requirements, I would think it prudent to do more research on this.
Also, the military segregates men and women. Would you then segregate based on sexual orientation? Or would everyone integrate? There are good reasons why men and women are kept seperate and I would think those same reasons would apply if DADT is repealed, but, again, no research has been done.
I'm not against repealing DADT if research supports it, but there isn't any, for or against.
Uh.. research? Segregation?
There's already gay people in the military, and the only thing that changes is that people aren't booted out.
Bad behavior is already proscribed and that won't change.
It would be funny to see them try and do "research" on it. Actually.. all you'd have to do is ask the Brits, they'll tell you it's not big deal. There.. done.
You really arn't fundamentally understanding what I'm saying.
It is a big deal. British society isn't homophobic, ours is. The British military, being drawn from the British people, is not homophobic, ours is. Putting people whose job it is to deal in death in a situation they are uncomfortable with and may effect their performance is not something you want to do. It's why females are housed in seperate barracks in almost (I assume there is at least one exception, but it could be every) every military anywhere.
I'm obviously not making this clear to you, but I've been discussing it with a few people here
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31158&p=1151403&hilit=comprehensive+evidence#p1151403
Feel free to look in.
I must not be "getting it".. because I don't think gay members of the US Army are going to start dressing in drag if DADT is repealed.
There's always been gay service members.. and the only thing that changes.. the only thing that changes..
THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGES
is that the military stops throwing them out.
And, you know.. the US is not nearly as homophobic as you think it is.. the majority support either gay marriage or civil unions. In 2005 it was nearly 60%, and I suspect by now it's a greater margin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States_public_opinion
Actually.. now that I think about it.. any country where a majority supports equal rights for gay people cannot, by definition, be "homophobic".
In other words.. you're just wrong.
I would be wrong...except I'm not.
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/ZogbyReport.pdf
You really just fail to go beyond "Hey, they are gay now, so it's okay."
They can be gay now. Gays can be in the military. They just can't let anyone know they are gay because that would, according to current thinking, have a detrimental impact on moral in the same way that housing males and females together does. If you can come up with something other than "THEY ARE TEH GHEY!" then theres no point in talking with you about this.
To sum in all up: The military is used to exert physical force against enemies of the state. It does that right now. Is there evidence to suggest that the downside, if any, of integrating homosexuals right now will outweigh the benefits. We just have so little information to make any decision on.
Oh.. awesome.. you said that "our society is homophobic", so I showed you that it isn't.. and then you refer me to an opinion survey of military members.. and OF COURSE they've a long history of bias. They've had policies excluding gay people for a long time, so it's not unusual.
Talk about moving the goal posts..
Do you have a similar poll of the British military before they changed their rules? The French.. Germans.. Israelis?
The British military, being drawn from the British people, is not homophobic, ours is.
I assume the American military, being drawn from the American people.. and so on..
"So little information"? Where the fuck are you going to get your "information" if not from fucking western nations that have fucking done it? Jesus fucking Christ you can't be any more stupid... this is getting just ridiculous.
Where the fuck are you going to get your "research"?
God, I just wish you would use some common sense.
Look at where the majority of our military recruiting is done?
The South and the Rocky Mountain west.
Now look at those areas of the country and check how homophobic they are. I mean, this isn't fucking rocket science.
And LOL, did you really just compare Nazi Germany to current German policy? Way to be a douchebag.
And are you seriously telling me that we as a nation, as it relates to homosexuals, is anywhere close to ANY of the other countries that allow for openly gay service?
FFS, you're so knowledgeable on the topic you didn't even know Israel was gay friendly.
Your inability to do anything except spew talking points w/o responding to any legitimate concerns raised is staggering, to the point that I would think you belong on talk radio.
I'm done discussing this in you comments section. If you can find somewhere else, I'd be more than happy, but this little box is somewhat confining.
I never looked up Israel's view on gays, but I'd note that the United States has full blown same-sex marriage, and other states with civil unions. Israel does not.
Which country is less "homophobic" again?
But, again, you've not bothered to answer any questions related to this "research" you want done.
I HAVE responded to "legitimate concerns". England, France, Germany, Canada, Israel.. should I go on?
I've said, over and over, that the only thing that changes is that the military stops kicking people out.
You've made zero argument to support some notion that the military is going to start putting on drag shows, resulting in the more redneck soldiers becoming upset.
There is ZERO evidence that there would be any problem, and more than ample evidence that there would be none.. Again, look at the countries that have done it.
You offer zero evidence. I offer many real examples.. of nations that have actually done it.
I'm not "spewing talking points", I've made my argument, and if you've heard it elsewhere, maybe it's because it's a rational argument.
Regardless, it's coming, and once the dust settles and it's much ado about nothing, you'll have moved on to the next issue you know nothing about, have no evidence concerning, and whine that everyone else is spewing talking points.
And this is why it's so refreshing to see Obama taking these sorts of measures that he is. There's no more debate.. there's a time to do... and he's going to do. The people that don't like it can fuck off, and that includes soldiers that have a problem with it, regardless of where they are from.
Our values are NOT dictated by the ignorance and bigotry of the bible belt. Fuck them.. and we are. They'll get over it.
Post a Comment