![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
How to make it better; or, what a real Democratic leader is like
New York state has now legalized same-sex marriage. It has been obvious for a couple years now that opponents of marriage equality are fighting rear-guard actions. From a high of passing state-level DOMA laws last decade to now when DoJ won't defend the federal law and we are creeping toward a situation where 1/4th of the country will recognize all couples' rights in marital arrangements. The war isn't yet won, and won't be for some time, but momentum is on the side of equality now.
If you have not read it already, I highly recommend Michael Barbaro's piece in the NY Times about how this was made to happen: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html?_r=1
Nate Silver picks up on some of this in his column (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/cuomos-presidential-moment-forms-contrast-with-obama/) and in particular highlights how Cuomo's style contrasts with Obama's. What would it look like if Obama actually got out there and led rather than making nice speeches and letting others do the heavy lifting? I suspect it would look like this fight - tough, nail-biting, down to the individual vote counts. And maybe we'd still lose some, but at least we'd feel like we were in the fight instead of capitulating every time the Republicans say "boo".
Cuomo's style is hands-on and top-down, with tight control over rogue elements in the coalition. He comes across as a guy with political brass balls as well as heart and brains. Right now I think Obama's testicles are named "Hilary Clinton" and "Nancy Pelosi".
Oh, and while we're doing tallies you baseball fans may be interested to know that the Minnesota Twins have announced they'll be making a team "It Gets Better" video, joining the Red Sox, Cubs, Mariners, and Giants who have already done so.
If you have not read it already, I highly recommend Michael Barbaro's piece in the NY Times about how this was made to happen: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html?_r=1
Nate Silver picks up on some of this in his column (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/cuomos-presidential-moment-forms-contrast-with-obama/) and in particular highlights how Cuomo's style contrasts with Obama's. What would it look like if Obama actually got out there and led rather than making nice speeches and letting others do the heavy lifting? I suspect it would look like this fight - tough, nail-biting, down to the individual vote counts. And maybe we'd still lose some, but at least we'd feel like we were in the fight instead of capitulating every time the Republicans say "boo".
Cuomo's style is hands-on and top-down, with tight control over rogue elements in the coalition. He comes across as a guy with political brass balls as well as heart and brains. Right now I think Obama's testicles are named "Hilary Clinton" and "Nancy Pelosi".
Oh, and while we're doing tallies you baseball fans may be interested to know that the Minnesota Twins have announced they'll be making a team "It Gets Better" video, joining the Red Sox, Cubs, Mariners, and Giants who have already done so.
no subject
The problem isn't so much the religious exemptions that were sewn into the NY Legislation. The problem is more that there was a 'inseverability' clause sewn in, stating that if any one part of this law is invalidated in the courts, the legislation itself is completely invalidated. And although it doesn't have a lick of logic to stand on, being that the USSC has already passed some seriously bad judgments this term, I don't have a lot of faith that the inseverability clause is going anywhere anytime soon. Other states with large Republican contingencies are likely going to take this same tack, so while we are likely to see an increase in Marriage Equality legislation across all 50 states, it may be a while before the courts can find a way to extricate the idiot 'suicide bomb' clause in the legislation, or the inequities of religious exemptions therein.