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.

[Alecto]

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

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

See aforementioned mistrust of politicians.

[BruceChris]

Originally Posted by Alecto

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

Well. many studies have shown that as far as pregnancy prevention is concerned, abstinence-only education is not worth a f***.
Or absence thereof.

More science: http://wigaypedia.com/wiki/Scientific_Consensus

Get to know Wigaypedia, it's a good source.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[tdogg]

Obama has said publicly (at least during his campaign) that he will work to repeal both DOMA and DADT. Although he has also said he personally believes marriage is between a man and a woman, he has also said that he believes everyone should be treated the same under the law. And, he did state he will work to pass Federal hate crimes legislation.

So, unless he's completely full of crap, he should be able to get some of this done with the current Democratic majority in both house and senate. Time will tell, but I am also seeing the glass half-full right now. I'm going to give in to the hope and optimism, for now.

[Rick336]

I like Obama. I worked for his campaign last fall. But if he truly bases his decisions on facts then he can't be a Christian. Christianity is based on faith, not facts. Faith means believing in the absence of facts.

Obama is a smart man. He has to say he's a Christian and that he's against gay marriage because if he didn't, he would never have gotten elected.

Those are the facts.

Rick

[sarahbina]

Just maybe this is a slam at Bush, (backhanded) because Bush made up a lot of science. A friend taught science to 8th graders and had his class find news items about science and lots of weird stuff was put out by the Bush admin. I think this is what he means.

I do wonder what Obama will do for gay rights and that they emcompass, hate crimes, tolerance, marriage, work place discrimination. We'll hope and see.

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."

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Rick336

I like Obama. I worked for his campaign last fall. But if he truly bases his decisions on facts then he can't be a Christian.

Rick

You're missing an essential element, here. Obama can be Christian and still base policy on facts. An intellectually sophisticated person (which Obama certainly is) can hold one set of beliefs for his personal, inner life without attempting to impose them on the rest of the world.