Motley Moose – Archive

So, in the document below the fold is some text from the Obama Change.org site regarding Civil Rights.

One of the things in this document is:

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples.

Note, the “Civil Union” terminology. Now, as mentioned before I like to think of myself as a pragmatist, so when something essentially says “equal rights” but calls it a Civil Union I can easily support it, especially if one thinks about it as a first step. It’s about “equal rights” right? And “Marriage” has a bit of a pejorative history anyways (being based on religious and legal ownership). So a big YAY, right? right?

Yet, it seems there are some in the LGBT community who automatically bristle at the term CU, seeing it as a “separate but equal” issue. And it does not seem to help when I try and frame “separate but equal” as being an infrastructure policy, separate schools, public spaces, bathrooms etc. CU seems to be a non-starter for some, no matter how it is phrased.

But, I can’t help but think, if the emotionally laded term “marriage” is removed it would make it incredibility easier to achieve those rights.

My query, am I off my rocker for thinking this is a good thing? I am after all a white, het, married, male so I am willing to admit the issue is not as immediate for me as it would be for others.

All responses welcome, but I’d like to especially hear from those within the GLBT community if possible.

One of the reason I am so resistant to self-identify as an official “Democrat” is how figgen scatterbrained the “base” tends to be.

On balance I agree more with the general Democratic platform than the Republican, but mainly because there is not a viable Socialist party.

So, I consider myself a prgmatist in many ways, especially when viewing how politics work. Setting aside the Lieberman decision by the Democratic caucus today, in letting him keep his Homeland security chairmanship (hell, I think the whole Department of Homeland security notion kind of creepy to start with), there has been a lot of backbiting in Democratic circles about a possible H. Clinton as SoS, and the fact that Obama is drawing on Clinton era appointees to help staff his WH.

To which I say,

The Morning After

Zina Saunders

but it should be put out there.

You heard it here first.

I predict that Sarah Palin will form her own Political party/movement and run as a third party candidate in 2012.

Why not run as a Republican you ask?

Over the last few days we have heard about some extravagant spending by the Republicans. The $150,000 for clothes for Ms. Palin and Fam, and now expenditures for art restoration, elephant-shaped shrubbery, baseball tickets, a yacht rental, lunches for Karl Rove, 250 wine glasses adorned with elephant designs, elephant shaped chocolates, jewelry and political paraphernalia, more clothes from Lands End…

In all of this what I want to know is, how much of all this was spent using public financing? Yeah some came from private donations via the RNC, but did any of it come from McCain’s budget? If so…

I am not sure how parts of this this will be received, but here goes.

The story of Powell and Todd.

John McCain has 12 news cycles to grab the attention and momentum from Barack Obama.

Or, does he?

The following is a wholly subjective break down of the news cycle for the next 12 days.

According to the Guardian, Cuba may have just discovered it is sitting on 20,000,000,000 (20 Billion) barrels of oil.

NYT reports Bob Bauer, general counsel for the Obama campaign, is calling for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to look into political motives for law enforcement (FBI) targeting of ACORN, as an extension of the abuse of power resulting in the United States attorney firings.

I request that Special Prosecutor Dannehy’s inquiry include a review of any involvement by Justice Department and White House officials in supporting the McCain-Palin campaign and the Republican National Committee (“RNC”)’s systematic development and dissemination of unsupported, spurious allegations of vote fraud. It is highly likely that the very sort of politically motivated conduct identified in the Department’s investigation to date, necessitating the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, is repeating itself, and for the same reason: unwarranted and politically motivated intervention in the upcoming election. An investigation must be entrusted to government officials who do not have an improper political motivation or a conflict of interest, either in fact or appearance.

NYT