• 1
I find it hilarious that pointing to his being a member of the United Church of Christ is supposed to be evidence for his being against same-gender marriage.

What the UCC says about marriage equality.

The President is MORE in line with his denomination now than he was when he wasn't openly and publicly supportive of marriage equality!

Yeah, you can recognize the CC churches around here by their rainbow banners and signs out front.

I have seen at least two separate arguments since 3 PM about why this is an anti-gay move.

...Three, actually, if you count the one from the Log Cabin Republicans.

I'll wait until government policy reflects his statement before cheering.

I could not work out how to copy the key over here but if you click on it, it takes you to the original article:

The slaver states are pretty much universally awful but they have lots of company in this matter. Anyone know how this works out by age cohort?

IIRC there are large age differences everywhere, even Utah; the overall support level just determines the position of the whole spectrum. And change has been much more rapid than a simple dying-cohort model would suggest.

Seems to me that Obama's policy on gay rights has always been more supportive than his actual rhetoric. (At least, since he started running for President.) If anything, this brings his publicly avowed statements more in line with his actual actions.

Still refusing to sign an executive order on non-discrimination for contractors, though.

I may be dense, but where is the parallel with 1991-1992 SF novels featuring the Soviet Union?

Maybe James is trying to argue that legalization of same-sex marriages is about to collapse, like the Soviet Union did, on the grounds of "as North Carolina goes, so goes the world"? (Which would be an extremely silly argument, needless to say.)

But, yeah, I don't see the parallel at all.

Oh for the day when my brain was merely electron degenerate

Ah, consider the state of prestige of the USSR in the days when Mike Capobianco was composing _Fellow Traveler_ (undoubtedly in WordPerfect 5.2 on a screamingly fast I-286SX). It seemed so unthinkable that such verities, such solidities as the CPSU, Gosplan, and Glavkosmos could evanesce, lose their too-too-solid-flesh because of neoliberal gangster cannibalism. In July 1991, it was unthinkable that the USSR would cease to be - and yet, five months later, it did.

So it will be with anti-gay marriage. The current statutes and constitutional amendments will fail test in federal court, just as the anti-miscenation statutes before them, and they will be dead-letter unenforceable anachronism. One day soon, gay and lesbian couples will get marriage licenses in the city hall of Raleigh, NC, in spite of that stupid vote on Tuesday. That's what James meant. Tipping point.

(Deleted comment)
It was genuinely surprising; very few people thought he would at least until the election, if ever. The aftermath of Biden's statement, in which the administration appeared to be walking it back and doing damage control, only seemed to make that clearer.

Ah, I missed the link to "the Awl piece", foolishly thinking that three words with a single underline actually constituted a single link, so that when I clicked on (as it happened) the last of those three words and was taken to the CBC news page, I assumed that was all there was.

Silly me for expecting clarity of linking on the Web.

In SF, a lot of writers, prefering authoritarianism as they generally do, thought the Soviets would be around forever. This meant the prognostications of books like Fellow Traveler and Russian Spring were contradicted in short order.

Chiore Sicha was absolutely certain Obama would never come out in favour of same sex marriage and yet the very next day he did.

Now, granted, BHO is part of the enabler party and the US is bound by treaty, apparently, to always be more assholish than Canada even when Canada has a bunch of social conservatives running it so nothing important will come of it but still, for an American, what Obama did verges on the mildly laudable, well into the realm of the marginally decent.

Obama had endorsed same-sex marriage when he was a local Illinois politician, but he had given a boilerplate answer in recent years about his personal one-man-one-woman belief, supplemented lately with a line about those beliefs "evolving", that sounded like the unconvincing result of an electoral calculation: some way to keep LGBT advocates on his side without losing homophobic swing voters who might be moved by economic advocacy.

I wasn't willing to speculate about his actual personal beliefs, but from the very calculated sound of the statement, I figured he'd stick with that formula at least through November. But I suppose things were coming to a point where it wasn't possible for him to split that difference any more; gay marriage was going to be a salient issue this year whether he jumped into it or not.

In 2004, Kerry insisted that he was opposed to gay marriage, and he got attacked on anti-gay-marriage grounds anyway, because the Massachusetts situation had made it a big story to scare people with regardless of anything he did. So it's not clear that what a Democratic politician actually says matters much to the opposition anyway. But the opinion landscape is much different in 2012 from in 2004.

Wouldn't the better parallel be Make Room! Make Room! where Harrison predicted that contraception would be illegal at the end of the 21st Century, only for the Supreme Court to issue Griswold before the book hit stores?

The Soviet Union disbanded in 1991. Because of the way publishing works, there were novels still coming out in 1992 that assumed the USSR would just keep going and going.

Similarly, because of the way publishing works, this news story came out in complete contradiction of very public statements made by the Obama administration around the time it came out.

Edited at 2012-05-10 02:39 pm (UTC)

And others desperately scrambling for ways for the SU to come back and provide the comforting framework of a new Cold War.

(no subject) (Anonymous) Expand
This seems like a good point to mention I keep running into works set now that describe the bad guys as "Soviets".

SF novels set in the early/mid 21st C that don't recognise progress in LGBT rights are likely to be as anachronistic as a 19th C SF novel that fails to recognise the impending demise of slavery.

Are there many of those, though? I mean, outside of the ones that have as their baseline a Chrstian-flavored dystopia that will never really go out of style (and is rarely offered as prediction/extrapolation to any real degree at any rate.)

I have to say I prefer Prime Minister Dithers' speech from back in 2005 (and I am a little surprised the ReformaTories have not yet got around to rolling that one back):


Edited at 2012-05-10 04:35 pm (UTC)

  • 1

Log in