70% is a big number. I hope that as time goes on this will become a "non issue" in IOWA!
The survey of 603 likely Iowa voters was conducted by Hill Research Consultants, a Texas-based Republican polling firm, from March 28 to 31. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Seventy percent of Iowans say they prefer a candidate who is focused on economic and government management, compared with less than a quarter who say they want someone focused on social issues like abortion and gay marriage.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Obama and Gay Rights ??
I have been just posting a link to the articles and a few lines from them - but here I am going to post the entire article because the Washington post link does not always work if you do not have an account. This is worth reading.......
Where's Our 'Fierce Advocate'?
By Richard SocaridesSaturday, May 2, 2009
In December, while trying to quiet the furor over his invitation of Rick Warren to take part in his inauguration, Barack Obama reminded us that he had been a "consistent" and "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans." But at the end of its first 100 days, his administration has been neither.
What makes this especially disappointing is that it comes during a crisis-driven "change moment" in our country's history that not only cries out for leadership but presents a particularly good climate for making substantial progress on gay equality.
As an adviser on gay rights to President Bill Clinton during his second term, I know how hard it is to achieve real progress. We learned that lesson acutely during Clinton's abortive first-term attempt to allow gays to serve in the military, an outcome for which he is still paying a steep legacy price.
But recent victories on gay marriage, a youth-driven paradigm shift in public opinion and the election of our first African American president make this a uniquely opportune moment to act.
I understand that the president has his hands full saving the economy. But across a broad spectrum of issues -- including women's rights, stem cell research and relations with Cuba -- the Obama administration has shown a willingness to exploit this change moment to bring about dramatic reform.
So why not on gay rights? Where is our New Deal?
It is the memory of 1993's gays-in-the-military debacle (and a desire never to repeat it) that has both the president's advisers and policy advocates holding back, waiting for some magical "right time" to move boldly.
This is a bad strategy. President Obama will never have more political capital than he has now, and there will never be a better political environment to capitalize on. People are distracted by the economy and war, and they are unlikely to get stirred up by the right-wing rhetoric that has doomed efforts in the past.
And people are willing to try new approaches. The court ruling legalizing gay marriage in Iowa represents a real opening, an opportunity to get "undecideds" to take another look not only at gay marriage but at gay rights in general. As Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin remarked, many Americans may be asking themselves, "If the [Iowa] Supreme Court said this, maybe I have to think anew."
Here is what Obama should do to seize this opportunity:
First, he should start talking about gay rights again, the way he did during the campaign. What made Clinton such a transformational figure of inclusion was his constant willingness to talk to and about gay people. When he said, "I have a vision and you are a part of it," you could feel his sincerity.
As president, Obama barely mentions gay and lesbian Americans. During his first 100 days, he has done so only while defending his selection of inauguration speakers. He was silent after the announcement of the Iowa decision -- one of the most important gay civil rights victories ever.
Second, he should move swiftly, as he promised during the campaign, to help secure passage of the bill now moving through Congress imposing new federal penalties for anti-gay hate crimes, as well as legislation allowing gays to serve in the military. Ten years have passed since Matthew Shepard was killed. We have endured 15 years of "don't ask, don't tell" discrimination. We have waited long enough.
Third, he should appoint a high-ranking, respected, openly gay policy advocate to oversee government efforts toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. Give this person access to policymakers, similar to what has been done on urban policy and for people with disabilities. This is especially important because, unlike Clinton, who had gay friends such as David Mixner, Roberta Achtenberg and Bob Hattoy around to nudge him, Obama has no high-profile gay senior aides with a history in the gay rights movement.
Finally, Obama should champion comprehensive, omnibus federal gay civil rights legislation, similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation and granting a basic umbrella of protections in employment, education, housing and the like (rather than the existing piecemeal approach to legislation). Such a bill should also provide for federal recognition of both civil unions and marriages as they are authorized by specific states.
Obama is in a good position, and the time is ripe for a new approach. Taking these steps might spare the country the trauma of devolving into a pervasive and divisive debate over gay marriage, which, after all, is not the only issue of concern to gay and lesbian Americans.
Gay voters who supported Barack Obama remain positive about him, and most are prepared to be patient. It's still early on gay rights for the Obama administration -- but now is the time to act boldly.
The writer, a lawyer in New York, served on the White House staff from 1993 to 1999, including three years as special assistant to President Bill Clinton.
Where's Our 'Fierce Advocate'?
By Richard SocaridesSaturday, May 2, 2009
In December, while trying to quiet the furor over his invitation of Rick Warren to take part in his inauguration, Barack Obama reminded us that he had been a "consistent" and "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans." But at the end of its first 100 days, his administration has been neither.
What makes this especially disappointing is that it comes during a crisis-driven "change moment" in our country's history that not only cries out for leadership but presents a particularly good climate for making substantial progress on gay equality.
As an adviser on gay rights to President Bill Clinton during his second term, I know how hard it is to achieve real progress. We learned that lesson acutely during Clinton's abortive first-term attempt to allow gays to serve in the military, an outcome for which he is still paying a steep legacy price.
But recent victories on gay marriage, a youth-driven paradigm shift in public opinion and the election of our first African American president make this a uniquely opportune moment to act.
I understand that the president has his hands full saving the economy. But across a broad spectrum of issues -- including women's rights, stem cell research and relations with Cuba -- the Obama administration has shown a willingness to exploit this change moment to bring about dramatic reform.
So why not on gay rights? Where is our New Deal?
It is the memory of 1993's gays-in-the-military debacle (and a desire never to repeat it) that has both the president's advisers and policy advocates holding back, waiting for some magical "right time" to move boldly.
This is a bad strategy. President Obama will never have more political capital than he has now, and there will never be a better political environment to capitalize on. People are distracted by the economy and war, and they are unlikely to get stirred up by the right-wing rhetoric that has doomed efforts in the past.
And people are willing to try new approaches. The court ruling legalizing gay marriage in Iowa represents a real opening, an opportunity to get "undecideds" to take another look not only at gay marriage but at gay rights in general. As Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin remarked, many Americans may be asking themselves, "If the [Iowa] Supreme Court said this, maybe I have to think anew."
Here is what Obama should do to seize this opportunity:
First, he should start talking about gay rights again, the way he did during the campaign. What made Clinton such a transformational figure of inclusion was his constant willingness to talk to and about gay people. When he said, "I have a vision and you are a part of it," you could feel his sincerity.
As president, Obama barely mentions gay and lesbian Americans. During his first 100 days, he has done so only while defending his selection of inauguration speakers. He was silent after the announcement of the Iowa decision -- one of the most important gay civil rights victories ever.
Second, he should move swiftly, as he promised during the campaign, to help secure passage of the bill now moving through Congress imposing new federal penalties for anti-gay hate crimes, as well as legislation allowing gays to serve in the military. Ten years have passed since Matthew Shepard was killed. We have endured 15 years of "don't ask, don't tell" discrimination. We have waited long enough.
Third, he should appoint a high-ranking, respected, openly gay policy advocate to oversee government efforts toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. Give this person access to policymakers, similar to what has been done on urban policy and for people with disabilities. This is especially important because, unlike Clinton, who had gay friends such as David Mixner, Roberta Achtenberg and Bob Hattoy around to nudge him, Obama has no high-profile gay senior aides with a history in the gay rights movement.
Finally, Obama should champion comprehensive, omnibus federal gay civil rights legislation, similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation and granting a basic umbrella of protections in employment, education, housing and the like (rather than the existing piecemeal approach to legislation). Such a bill should also provide for federal recognition of both civil unions and marriages as they are authorized by specific states.
Obama is in a good position, and the time is ripe for a new approach. Taking these steps might spare the country the trauma of devolving into a pervasive and divisive debate over gay marriage, which, after all, is not the only issue of concern to gay and lesbian Americans.
Gay voters who supported Barack Obama remain positive about him, and most are prepared to be patient. It's still early on gay rights for the Obama administration -- but now is the time to act boldly.
The writer, a lawyer in New York, served on the White House staff from 1993 to 1999, including three years as special assistant to President Bill Clinton.
I want to assure everyone that reads this (the 1 or 2 people) that this blog is not only going to be postings about Gay Marriage (however, this blog was sort of started because of all the emails I was sending friends after Gay Marriage became legal in IOWA) But I do think that theevents on the gay rights front in the past few weeks are very important! Many say that things have not come far enough, or fast enough - but for me I think these are HUGE steps in the right direction.
Seriously, did anyone really ever think that these events would all take place in a span of a week and on the heels of Gay Marriage in IOWA & VERMONT (both also occured within the same week)???
Thursday morning, the Maine Senate passed a marriage equality bill, granting same-sex couples the same rights, privileges and protections that heterosexuals in the state have.
The bill now moves to the House of Representatives for consideration next week.
On Wednesday, the New Hampshire senate also legalized same-sex marriage. Their House already passed it as and the bill is now in the hands of the NH Governor, who has not said whether he will sign, veto or not sign.
Also yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, which extends federally protected categories to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
And, this week as a well, new polls show that right now, Americans as a whole are favoring gay marriage by 42%, that's 9% more than just a month ago. An additional 25% are in favor of civil unions."
Seriously, did anyone really ever think that these events would all take place in a span of a week and on the heels of Gay Marriage in IOWA & VERMONT (both also occured within the same week)???
Thursday morning, the Maine Senate passed a marriage equality bill, granting same-sex couples the same rights, privileges and protections that heterosexuals in the state have.
The bill now moves to the House of Representatives for consideration next week.
On Wednesday, the New Hampshire senate also legalized same-sex marriage. Their House already passed it as and the bill is now in the hands of the NH Governor, who has not said whether he will sign, veto or not sign.
Also yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, which extends federally protected categories to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
And, this week as a well, new polls show that right now, Americans as a whole are favoring gay marriage by 42%, that's 9% more than just a month ago. An additional 25% are in favor of civil unions."
In Minnesota...its a start
This is a good step.......
Despite fierce opposition from Republicans, a bill that would allow same-sex partners to make end-of-life decisions for their partners passed the Minnesota Senate on Thursday by a 37 to 24 vote. The bill, which also gives same-sex partners the right to sue for wrongful death, was opposed by legislators who said it was simply a back door to gay marriage.
The bill gives same-sex couples rights currently prohibited by law: it creates a definition of “domestic partner,” allows partners to sue in cases of wrongful death and gives same-sex partners decision-making power about remains.
Despite fierce opposition from Republicans, a bill that would allow same-sex partners to make end-of-life decisions for their partners passed the Minnesota Senate on Thursday by a 37 to 24 vote. The bill, which also gives same-sex partners the right to sue for wrongful death, was opposed by legislators who said it was simply a back door to gay marriage.
The bill gives same-sex couples rights currently prohibited by law: it creates a definition of “domestic partner,” allows partners to sue in cases of wrongful death and gives same-sex partners decision-making power about remains.
A change in mood or attitude???
As you might be able to tell I steal a lot of stuff on here from Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish
Ryan Sager looks at the new marriage poll:
I want to make the argument that we may be starting to see a “bandwagon effect” that will significantly increase support for gay marriage in the next few years.
The bandwagon effect — relatively well-established in social and political science — is when voters are influenced in their opinions or votes by which side they perceive as having majority support or being the “winning” side. While partisans tend to remain committed, more undecided voters react to two basic impulses: wanting to follow the herd and assuming that the majority of people must have information that they don’t.
Ryan Sager looks at the new marriage poll:
I want to make the argument that we may be starting to see a “bandwagon effect” that will significantly increase support for gay marriage in the next few years.
The bandwagon effect — relatively well-established in social and political science — is when voters are influenced in their opinions or votes by which side they perceive as having majority support or being the “winning” side. While partisans tend to remain committed, more undecided voters react to two basic impulses: wanting to follow the herd and assuming that the majority of people must have information that they don’t.
Hate Crimes
I find this take very interesting.
I believe the left has abandoned its principles here in same way that the right abandoned it's principles on torture. Outside of the issue of hate crimes, you will find progressive thinkers opposed to slapping on more jail time as a solution to everything. This is why, they say, you will find overcrowded prisons costing the state in terms of upkeep and lost economic potential. Moreover, they say, long prison sentences automatically imposed (by such laws as the three strikes rule) take justice out of context and only contribute to the problem.
Why, then, do these same people suddenly want to throw away the key for those who inflict pain on others from prejudice? Is it because they think the prison system works for bigots where it fails everyone else? This is a profound contradiction that at least requires explanation.
Matthew Shepard was murdered. If the penalty for murder is not enough, then the real problem is how we treat murder cases. All of them.
Of course, if you believe that his murderers deserved the maximum sentence because they brutally murdered someone, and not because they were meth-fueled bigots, it doesn't matter. I want the same laws against the same acts enforced equally on everyone. If police don't enforce the law equally, get on their case. But leave the laws alone.
I believe the left has abandoned its principles here in same way that the right abandoned it's principles on torture. Outside of the issue of hate crimes, you will find progressive thinkers opposed to slapping on more jail time as a solution to everything. This is why, they say, you will find overcrowded prisons costing the state in terms of upkeep and lost economic potential. Moreover, they say, long prison sentences automatically imposed (by such laws as the three strikes rule) take justice out of context and only contribute to the problem.
Why, then, do these same people suddenly want to throw away the key for those who inflict pain on others from prejudice? Is it because they think the prison system works for bigots where it fails everyone else? This is a profound contradiction that at least requires explanation.
Matthew Shepard was murdered. If the penalty for murder is not enough, then the real problem is how we treat murder cases. All of them.
Of course, if you believe that his murderers deserved the maximum sentence because they brutally murdered someone, and not because they were meth-fueled bigots, it doesn't matter. I want the same laws against the same acts enforced equally on everyone. If police don't enforce the law equally, get on their case. But leave the laws alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)