We Value Science

[keltic63]

Obama makes a bold statement and sends a clear message that the actions of his administration will be based on facts, not ideology!

With the nomination of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu for Energy secretary, President-elect Barack Obama made sure no one missed the message in the resume.

"His appointment should send a signal to all that my administration will value science," Obama said during a Chicago news conference Monday. "We will make decisions based on facts, and we understand that the facts demand bold action."

What does this mean for us? What does it mean for others?

Will research move forward finally?

Will decisions about LGBT people, like marriage equality, be based on the science instead of the religious dogma?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by keltic63

Will decisions about LGBT people, like marriage equality, be based on the science instead of the religious dogma?

One can only hope. But my sense is that- after watching the news conference- Obama was talking about global warming.

His stance during the campaign on gay marriage- which seems very much a part of his faith- is- of course- at odds with 'facts'.

Know what I expect to hear from him on this issue? That the States should be able to decide what to do about marriage. Well. That's a no brainer.

I bet he will stay out of the fray of debate as much as possible. And I'll be surprised if he takes a positive stance towards gay marriage.

[Matt Algren]

I agree, and while I'm certainly disappointed...

I wonder if it's better that it go the Supreme Court route. The pragmatic part of me says that it doesn't matter how it happens, just that it happens. But the seldom-seen idealist sliver of Matt thinks that he'd rather have it declared that gay rights have always been a part of the Constitution than have a law written based on the notion that gay rights aren't there by nature.

Does that make any sense?

[sauu4equality]

Many times I have felt that Obama has been speaking about more than one thing with his words. I think this quote in context is meant to be about Global Warming. But in a broader sense, he could have been making a jab at the Bush Administration which he feels did not use facts or evidence in many of their decisions (Federal Marriage Amendment, Iraq, Lack of Environmental Programs). This could most certainly be a nod to those that want our military to stop using "just-war theory" (applied incorrectly by the Bush Admin I might add) and to those of us who want science to be applied to our legislation on marriage.

It also could have been a political statement with the intention of pro-Gay folks and progressives taking it more broadly and thus making those groups support the President-Elect more whole-heartedly. I'm going to take the glass half-full interpretation right now and hope that Obama employs evidence and facts (and reality) in his decision making on all issues.

[Alecto]

So, can we expect major cuts to abstinence-only education? (Please?!)

Also: WHOA there Sauu! DOMA was actually a result of the Clinton presidency (the reason I don't trust politicians, even when they run on a gay rights platform). That said: I still don't "trust" Obama (yet), but I am more hopeful than I've let myself be in awhile.

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by Alecto

So, can we expect major cuts to abstinence-only education? (Please?!)

That's almost a given, isn't it?

[sauu4equality]

Originally Posted by Alecto

So, can we expect major cuts to abstinence-only education? (Please?!)

Also: WHOA there Sauu! DOMA was actually a result of the Clinton presidency (the reason I don't trust politicians, even when they run on a gay rights platform). That said: I still don't "trust" Obama (yet), but I am more hopeful than I've let myself be in awhile.

That was a typed miss-speak. Meant the Federal Marriage Amendment (unsuccessful). I also don't blaim the Clintons for DOMA. I don't have any sound reasons for this other than neither of them are anti-gay. And DADT was a compromise gone awry. The way it has been executed is much more a problem than it being put in place (it was meant to allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military...in execution, it has been used for continued witch-hunts and discrimination). I have meantioned this before, but I feel I must mention it again...no gay people would have ever made it into the highest offices of the executive branch of our government without the Clintons. Society is to blame for their failings on gay rights. But I will correct my previous post accordingly. I cannot blame the Bush Admin for that one.