Streams

Doing Dishes

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Andrew Sullivan blogger for The Daily Dish at Atlantic.com and author of The Conservative Soul, discusses the Prop 8 ruling in California, the Sotomayor nomination, and other news.

Guests:

Andrew Sullivan

Comments [9]

thatgirlinnewyork from manhattan

eva,

I agree with the call for more diversity on the front lines--and that diversity must include straight couples who can vouch that it doesn't demean their union to include others under the "big tent" of equality.

Yoichi,

Damn straight it's a federal issue, and nothing less.

May. 28 2009 04:26 PM
Yoichi from California

Dear Brian,

I leaned that Gay Marriage is not a State issue but a Federal issue. Here is a real story. One person had a foreign same sex partner (who was a college student). Then the student graduated, but could not find a job under this recession. The peer (who is a U.S. citizen) tried to get a spousal visa to stay together, but in vain. Why? the State Department does not acknowledge the same sex marriage although some states now acknowledge.

So please advise your guests or callers that it is a Federal issue.

May. 28 2009 12:52 PM
mc from Brooklyn

I appreciate the fresh voice of Andrew. He does not fall easily into catagories. I haev found a few of his posts to be borderline misogynist.

I agree with eva, above. The failure to block Prop 8 was partly because of a failure to build a good coalition. We need to stop making assumptions about people based on their color, including assumptions about the sitting president. We have a card-carrying Federalist Society member suing in favor of gay marraige. We have Latin and Black churches marching against it. Wake up, people, it's time to listen to each other.

May. 28 2009 10:27 AM
jan from ringwood nj

The point of the Sotomayor issue is that the justices on the Supreme Court should not have the same kinds of life experience. They don't all need to have felt powerless at some time in their lives as long as one of them has. It is the diversity of backgrounds that is so important in our diverse nation.

May. 28 2009 10:23 AM
Steve (the other one) from Manhattan

You can read the motion for a preliminary injunction here: http://www.stinque.com/2009/05/27/breaking/

Well written and cogently argued. It. Could. Work.

May. 28 2009 10:21 AM
Chriss Williams from Montclair, NJ

Brian,

She said DIFFERENT, and BETTER decision.

Different is correct.

It's the Better that is a problem.

However, hearing her comment it seems like she was talking to "her people." Therefore, I took it as funny, not a philosophy.

May. 28 2009 10:20 AM
steve from brooklyn

I would just like to say that Andrew is always right on on many issues. His intelligent, rational, and often passionate commentary is a refreshing voice in this time of distracting blogosphere noise.
His 'Why Obama Matters' piece was genius!
Great guest...thanks for having him on!

May. 28 2009 10:18 AM
Voter from Brooklyn

Brian,
I believe the lawsuit will be on the basis of equal protection, un-enumerated rights, and possibly due process from what I’ve read… so that would be the 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments making it an issue for the Supreme Court. Also, since there are a host of rights and responsibilities bestowed upon couples who are “married” in the eyes of the state by the federal government, this also makes it an issue for the Supreme Court.
States cannot abridge federal rights and federal rights must be applied equally, even if they are based on a state institutions.

May. 28 2009 10:17 AM
eva

I'm a big Andrew Sullivan fan, and I saw this posted on the Times website after Tuesday's announcement. I think it echoes some of the feedback Andrew referenced back in November.

This was posted by "Shak" who lives in SF:

"When I moved to SF last fall, I almost accepted an offer to be "No on 8" organizer in Oakland. But I declined the offer. Why? Because I would have been the one of maybe two people of color organizers on the campaign. Because it was two months before election day, and after extensive talks with campaign managers and other folks involved, I came to see that not much had been done to reach out to primarily Black, Latino and API communities in the Bay Area (no phone banks, no contacts with local leadership, etc). Fresh from my victories by forming cross-cultural coalitions with the LGBT groups on my college campus, this was a very rude awakening for me. I marched in solidarity with the angry and the sad in the Castro the Friday following election day, but I felt a world apart.
Is the CA Supreme Court decision a major FAIL? Yes. But it's time to stop preaching to the choir. It's time to form untraditional alliances. It's time to involve people of color within and outside the LGBT community. It's time to form a movement that so racially, ethnically, economically, politically diverse that our voices can no longer be ignored.
Who's with me?"
— Shak, San Francisco, CA

Well, I'm with Shak. Tho gay marriage is no priority for me, I still voted no on 8. But I think Prop 8 only won because of the arrogance/incompetence of the anti-8 campaign staff. I am glad that Andrew called people out on it.

May. 28 2009 02:00 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.