I found this extremely ironic that Obama would admit this.

[plantwomyn]

"Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time."

This is very close to the words used by the lawyers during the CA Supreme Court arguments for equal marriage rights. They said that equal marriage is already in the CA constitution just like miscegenation was constitutional even before it was recognized by the court.
So I'm still wondering HOW can Obama "selectively" interpret the Constitution?

[dbackjon]

1. Because he is a homophobe at heart.

[Tyo]

2. The truth in one short sentence.

:thumbsup:

[JackintheGreen]

4. Lincoln was a racist at heart

and yet he still managed to free the slaves.

How 'bout that?

[Tyo]

5. Obama has said that he's not freeing anyone

beyond some sort of separate but equal arrangement that he wants to leave up to the states to sort out. And my history might not be the greatest but didn't Lincoln free the slaves only in those states that the North was at war with?

[plantwomyn]

6. You are correct.

Emancipation Proclamation
The proclamation did not free any slaves in the border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia), or any southern state (or part of a state) already under Union control.
Politics at it's core.
Obama type politics at it's best would be much the same.

[mitchtv]

24. I think I'll pass on Alabama"s Plan for us

[Hydra]

9. Only because he had to

As he stated himself.

Does Obama have to "Free the slaves"?

Does HRC?

[mondo joe]

10. If Obama was going to deliver on equal rights you've had a point.

But you don't.

[JackintheGreen]

13. My point is simply that honorable politicians

will do what is required whether they agree with the premise or not. Lincoln might have done only what was politically expedient, but without the Emancipation Proclamation (and the guns to back it up) how much longer would America have waited?

Sen. Obama *might* be homophobic, as the poster I responded to stated. I don't know that to be true. i do know that the African-American community is often homophobic. But that does not discount the possibility that a President Obama might well do what is (morally) right for the polity without getting distracted by what a much smaller community has to say about it.

[mondo joe]

16. Lincoln did what he thought he had to do, which mattered in spite of his racism.

0bama is the opposite: he says he's not homophobic, but he says he will NOT deliver on equality.

[Creideiki]

20. Jack, Illinois doesn't breed "honorable politicians"

We breed pragmatists. Lincoln did a lot of really, really nasty and unconstitutional things during the Civil War because he had an end goal of winning the Civil War and maintaining the Republic.

Obama is far from the Second Coming. He's flawed--and that's okay. But it's really disturbing to see people act like he's a religious figure. He's not. He's just another pragmatist from Illinois. Now, to the extent that he could get things done, I would be behind him. But apparently, he was given the bulk of the Democratic platform from the first Blagojevich governor's run to claim as "sponsor". All of his "achievements" would have happened regardless of who was the "sponsor".

[JackintheGreen]

21. As a native of Illinois, I *should* take offence to that

and I could even list the likes of Paul Simon and Dick Durbin to illustrate my point. Unfortunately they are more than overbalanced by the likes of Dan Rostenkowski, the Daley Machine et.al., Harold Washington, and that whole mess going there in the state assembly now.

However, to suggest that I am acting like he's some religious figure or the Second Coming. Heaven forfend! I defy you to find a single of my posts that suggests such a ridiculous position. This is what offended me.

And yes, he is a pragmatist. Pragmatists tend to get things done, more so than either idealists or idealogues. But so is Sen. Clinton.

[Creideiki]

28. Paul Simon may have been the anomaly

And Hillary is also from Illinois. So one way or the other, we get a pragmatist. The thing that bothers me is the people that think that Barack is some idealistic figure.

[JackintheGreen]

29. She may be from Illinois

but she's no more an Illinois politician than I am.

And the messianic bit wears on me, too, even though I support him. Just be careful not to paint with too broad a brush.

[TechBear_Seattle]

31. You raise an excellent question: Why support someone who will never deliver on equal rights? n/t

[davidinalameda]

30. he is?

pray tell

what led you to this conclusion

[Hydra]

3. Because GWB does it

That is by far the MOST DAMAGING thing we've allowed to happen- allowing the pResident to interpret the laws as he sees fit, including his oath of office.

Selective interpretation, and selective enforcement- the essence of a Tyranny.

[plantwomyn]

8. Selective interpretation, and selective enforcement- the essence of a Tyranny.

Does that make Obama tyrannical?

[Hydra]

11. Give him the position, and we'll find out

We've found out beyond a shadow of a doubt that GWB by allowing him to steal the office.

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Abraham Lincoln

[plantwomyn]

22. And if we didn't learn our lesson with GWB

we never will.
I have no desire to test Obama's character by giving him power. I would rather test it NOW before it's too late!

[Bluenorthwest]

7. A bleak irony

in the midst of calls for understanding. But of course Obama says he agrees with Cheney, the states should get the choice, when the 14th amendment denies the States the ability to selectively apply the law in any way, rights or privileges.
It is clear where he stands. Prejudice against Obama is bad. The other prejudices are God ordained. As long as the don't harm Obama, in which case God is wrong of course.

[Beregond2]

12. Ironic

The whole thrust of his speech was that America slowly evolves toward realizing the potentials inherent in the Constitution. How does advocating civil unions over marriage violate that theme? On the contrary, it perfectly embodies it.

I am a gay man, and I prefer civil unions over marriage rights, because it avoids the religious issue entirely, short-circuiting the main objection of the right. It also gives benefits to same-sex couples who may not wish to marry. Yes, right now it isn't giving ALL the benefits of marriage, but it will, in time.

Anyone who calls Obama a homophobe is probably trying to mask their own bigotry by projecting it onto him.

[plantwomyn]

14. Your reply is ironic too.

"The whole thrust of his speech was that America slowly evolves toward realizing the potentials inherent in the Constitution. How does advocating civil unions over marriage violate that theme? On the contrary, it perfectly embodies it."
Obama's entire campaign is based on CHANGE and HOPE. Can we agree on that much? GOOD.
The irony is that is YOU position that the trust of Obama's speech "was that America slowly evolves"!
How many more years does YOUR candidate want me to wait for his "vision" to evolve and recognize me as a citizen?

"How does advocating civil unions over marriage violate that theme?"
You asked a question based on your evaluation of what the "theme" of Obama's speech was. I disagree and I doubt if Obama wanted his speech to be interpreted that way.

This is where I think the "trust" of Obama's speech is.
"The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American."

My question is:
How does advocating civil unions over marriage violate THE CONSTITUTION?
On the contrary, THE CONSTITUTION, perfectly embodies EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

If you wish to abdicate you rights, it is your right to do so. DO NOT expect those of us who have fought and bleed for OUR rights to follow your lead.

I did not called Obama a "homophobe". I do not call his position's concerning OUR community "LEADERSHIP".

BTFW - Just because you disagree with a person of color doesn't make you a BIGOT!

[LostinVA]

18. You're gay and you don't want equal rights for yourself?

:eyes:

[Clintonista2]

23. He knew "My best friend is gay" wouldn't work

The trolls are catching on!

[LostinVA]

26. The bacteria are evolving!

[queerart]

27. BINGO!

You Are So Correct........


The Trolls Are Catching On.........

[mitchtv]

25. nice try

you don't like Obama cause you're prejudiced? Hey you wanna buy a nice beach in AZ?. I hope you enjoy your second tier citizenship

[GodlessBiker]

15. Don't we all selectively interpret the Constitution?

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . ."

Why do most people interpret "no" as meaning something other than "no"?

[mondo joe]

17. Examples please?

[GodlessBiker]

19. Like I said: No law abridging speech does not mean no law.

If I get on a street corner and advocate the violent overthrow of the government, I can be arrested and charged with violating any number of federal law.

[mondo joe]

32. Well, the Supreme Court has interpreted that one. I'm not sure what to make of your

claim. Everything is interpretation - but it sounds to me like you're saying we all rationalize ways out of the Constitution.

In any event, I do find 0bama's statements ironic.

[GodlessBiker]

35. The Supreme Court interprets the whole thing.

It interprets what "no" means, what "Due Process of Law" means, what the right to bear arms means.

But we all do the same thing as well. We all read the words of the Constitution and interpret them, give them meaning. It's not like the meaning is right there for all to see. If it were, we would all agree on what it means in the same way we all say the sky is blue.

[JackBeck]

33. The 3/5th's Clause:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise

Obama was addressing how our Constitution was initially designed to give all Americans liberty and justice, while sussing out a compromise that had to be reached with the pro-slavery crowd, where it was decided to count 3/5ths of their slaves in order to numerically gain representation, since the slaves were still not allowed to vote, but counted toward the representative population, though not all of them. :eyes:

I believe you're making a disingenuous leap with this analogy. I believe that Obama was clearly addressing how slavery is stained into a document that also professes the freedoms for all of its citizens, while at the same time, gives a written acknowledgment that we regard some of its citizens as being lesser than and not equal to, as far as 2/5ths not counting.

State constitutions are vastly different than our federal document, which inevitably leads to the states rights argument (which seems more RRW than progressive). I've greatly struggled with the contentious arguments over states rights, because ultimately, the 14th Amendment of the United States constitution states that the rights one state provides should be recognized by all. But who am I to tell the state of Kansas what I think is beneficial for their state? But that is why I support the Supreme Court's decision overturning the state sodomy laws, cause that's what they are there for: to make these decisions.

[Tyler Durden]

34. 14th Amendment, Section 1.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

According to Section 1, it seems that equal rights are not negotiable or disposable, and that, contrary to Mr. Obama, THEY MAY NOT BE DETERMINED OR ABRIDGED BY THE STATES.

SO...anyone who takes the Oath of Office (including the one Senators take) WHO DOES NOT SUPPORT EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW IS IN VIOLATION OF SAID OATH AND SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

I don't really see any "fudge factor" built into this.