MetaChat - God bless Joe Biden's inability to keep from shooting his mouth off

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

09 May 2012

God bless Joe Biden's inability to keep from shooting his mouth off

post by: Trurl at: 14:14 | 21 comments

Why, what's he done now?

posted by Senyar 09 May | 14:28

The less I say, the better. Just check the blue - where the thread is underway.

posted by Trurl 09 May | 14:32

Oh wow, good old Joe.

posted by Senyar 09 May | 14:55

That thread is on fire right now!

posted by danf 09 May | 15:24

John Cook at Gawker called it Barack Obama’s Bullshit Gay Marriage Announcement, and summed it up with a pullquote from ABC News "The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own."

posted by filthy light thief 09 May | 18:04

And here's the MetaFilter thread in question.

posted by filthy light thief 09 May | 18:05

My follow-up to the Gawker link: while this isn't Obama saying "I want to take on the array of state-level laws," it's leagues apart from Romney's statement:

I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name

It's a long way from November, but I think this is still a huge step in the right direction.

posted by filthy light thief 09 May | 18:14

I think an amendment to a state constitution, not a law but a standard by which future state laws will be adjudicated, is a far greater harbinger than an empty gesture from an executive with weak leadership skills. Obama's stand on any issue will not be his downfall; that will come instead from his lack of commitment. Obama's weapon of choice is a baby wipe.

posted by Ardiril 09 May | 19:25

If your civil rights change when you cross a state line, you're still not a full citizen of the US. Here's a nice visual explanation of where the patch-work approach has gotten us.

posted by BoringPostcards 09 May | 20:43

Thanks for that link, BP. And I agree - marriage and anti-discrimination laws have to be at the Federal level.

posted by deborah 09 May | 20:52

I am ashamed to live in the Pacific Northwest, based on this data. Plus, Oregon has civil unions, BUT we also have a constitutional amendment which mandates that legal marriages will be between a man and a woman.

posted by danf 09 May | 20:52

Sigh, looking at BP's link you can really see how Pennsylvania the slow child of the northeast. It's frustrating because there are tons of progressive folks here in Pittsburgh and back in Philly but the whole rest of the state is as deep red as the south. You don't even have to venture far out of the city, this ass-hat is from a district only twenty miles north of Pittsburgh.

posted by octothorpe 09 May | 21:12

Ultimately, the way things are headed, this is going to end up in the Supreme Court because of the state-to-state disparity.

All the more reason to pay attention to who gets the office, and lend influence to the one you prefer, because they'll get to make the next appointments.

posted by Miko 09 May | 22:56

It's frustrating because there are tons of progressive folks here in Pittsburgh and back in Philly but the whole rest of the state is as deep red as the south.

When I lived in that state, I heard people describe it as "Philly and Pittsburgh with Mississippi in between."

posted by Miko 09 May | 22:56

Miko, I've also hear the middle part of PA referred to as Pensultucky. (Which I probably misspelled, but sound it out.)

posted by sperose 10 May | 06:31

The less I say, the better. Just check the blue - where the thread is underway.

Please don't do this on MetaChat. Or anywhere, really. If you're excited about $thing, link to it. Don't be an asshole.

posted by Eideteker 10 May | 12:55

If your civil rights change when you cross a state line, you're still not a full citizen of the US.

Absolutely. I'm a little torn here: I'm angry and sad that a sitting President's personal-not-political statement of support is such a big deal, but I see that it is a big deal. I suppose this is a step forward, but it feels like a bitty baby step, which is not enough.

And I'm also disappointed that the discussion continues to be phrased exclusively in terms of loving couples and raising families and wholesome folks deserving this right. I understand it's a rhetorical tactic: humanize and personalize so opponents will empathize more. But the right of opposite-sex couples to marry doesn't hinge on love or children or being wholesomely deserving: it just IS. Every adult should have the same right to marry, for whatever reason they see fit.

posted by Elsa 10 May | 13:09

Still trying to recover from the kick in the gut. Now I know how BP & every other gay southerner in a state that diminishes their dignity feels.

posted by chewatadistance 10 May | 18:28

For Joe

posted by oneswellfoop 11 May | 00:12

I'm not going to read a 550 comment thread, but anyone who thinks that Biden "blundered" is naive. He was the guinea pig to test the national reaction to this administration's support of gay marriage. It went okay with him, so they let Obama loose with the same position a few days later.

posted by amro 11 May | 08:49

anyone who thinks that Biden "blundered" is naive

That's an interesting perspective. Biden seems to have a strong reputation for putting his foot in his mouth or making unplanned comments. Is this case different, or is he always the go-to guy for testing out political positions?

posted by DarkForest 11 May | 12:23

← Photo Friday Advance: || OMG! Literate Bunny! →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN