The partner joke at the WH Correspondents' Dinner

[dsc]

Al Franken wrote about something called kidding on the square. Kidding on the square means telling a joke with a truth burried within. Obama's joke was something like this. He recounted talking with David Axelrod about running for President and then said "like thousands of partners across the country we went to Iowa to make it official". The problem for me is that on some level Obama really believes that our relationships are less equal than his. Yes I know, it is his religion which tells him so but he still believes it. I have no idea to what extent Obama believes our relationships are less worthy than his. I hope it isn't to the extent he honestly compares his relationship with Axelrod to that of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. I know many gay couples who have been together for decades through sickness and through health, through poverty and through wealth. They aren't just partners. But until he changes his opinion he might want to lay off the jokes.

[Frank Booth]

1. Right. And I also don't like how deep down inside he believes that Joe Biden is really a dog.

What with the leash joke and everything.

[dsc]

6. If you can point to any time he was on the record as stating that Biden is a dog before the joke

then I will take the comparision. Somehow I doubt you can.

[hulklogan]

2. I would apologize for all the cold-hearted people who are going to dismiss the point you make, dsc.

But they don't deserve it. :patriot:

[geckosfeet]

3. It was a reference to Iowa's recent decision to recognize gay marriage.

It was also a reference to presidential candidates having to file/register for the Iowa primary.

Kind of a double meaning thing going on there. I did not get a reference to him and Axe going to get married. I did not get any negative intent out of it either.

All in all, it was a night of roasts and making fun of the press and political figures and topics. If you think he was making fun of the gay community, then I would say that it was as an oblique glancing and indirect joke as it could be. Meek and mild compared to the "Rush does not qualify as a troubled asset" line. I certainly missed it.

[Kittycat]

4. That's how I understood it, as well as the Irony of Iowa...

Iowa being the pulse of political futures - it's also the pulse of America's growing belief system. Iowa has adopted the new laws - so when will the rest of America? All eyes are always on Iowa.

[msongs]

5. no profiles in courage award for the CiC on this issue nt

[Overseas]

7. I thought it was a sweet way to draw attention to an important issue.

He led into it by talking about his long friendship with Axelrod, then their discussions about the next steps and then deciding, like partners all across America, to go to Iowa to make it official.

It drew attention back to the fact that Iowa, middle America, was leading the way in giving gay and lesbian citizens the civil rights they deserve.

[Voice for Peace]

13. agree with overseas.

It struck me as a positive, with feeling

[TwilightZone]

8. Is your objection that he used the word "partners"?

I suppose that he could have said "couples", but he and Axelrod aren't a couple, they're a partnership.

"Partners" is the basis for the joke. It doesn't really work without it.

[dsc]

9. I do find partners offensive, yes

It is precisely the mindset that we are partners and not in a real relationship that leads to the denial of our rights.

[Zynx]

10. All I'll say to that is that is how I have heard some of my gay friends in Madison

refer to their relationships. I'm not entirely familiar with the appropriate nomenclature so I generally shut up on the subject.

[TwilightZone]

16. What do you prefer?

How should someone in a committed relationship refer to their significant other? You are objecting to "partners", but I don't think you've suggested an alternative.

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought that "partner" was pretty common. My best friend's mom has been in a committed relationship with another woman for nearly 30 years. She's used the term "partner" for as long as I can remember, as have other friends and family that are gay.

And, again, since the story started with his relationship with Axelrod, "partner" is about the only term I can think of that can be related to both situations.

[dsc]

18. try husband and wife

you know the words you call yourselves.

[TwilightZone]

19. What if they don't consider themselves to be married?

There are plenty of couples, gay and straight, who live together without getting married or otherwise making a lifelong commitment.

What then?

[dsc]

20. those going to Iowa to make it official presumedly do count themselves as married

and they were the subject of the joke.

[TwilightZone]

21. The other - and initial - subject of the joke was the relationship between Obama and Axelrod.

Husband and wife doesn't exactly fit there.

[dsc]

22. true

which is my whole point. Maybe he shouldn't have been comparing the relationships then. He would have been doing so if he believed those relationships were equal to his and Michele's.

[TwilightZone]

25. I agree with your underlying point.

I agree with you that Obama's lack of support (thus far) for marriage equality is wrong-headed, and I understand (and share) your objection to his position there.

I don't believe, however, that the general usage of "partners" is egregious in the least, and I think that you might be reading a bit too much into Barack's use of it in this particular context. I don't think he meant to demean Iowans getting married; I think he meant it as a positive acknowledgment.

At the very least, we know he's not afraid of the issue, since he brought it up - not much, I realize, but a start.

That doesn't improve his public position on the issue, of course. He now needs to acknowledge - and support - it outside of a joke at a private gathering. On that, I'm sure we agree.

[Baby Snooks]

37. They are lovers...

And that word still sends everyone scattering about covering up the eyes of the horses and the ears of the children.

In France everyone starts out as lovers. Sometimes they become something else. Sometimes they are just lovers. Sometimes they have been lovers for 50 years. Still enjoying each other's company with absolutely no strings that bind. And no strings to strangle with.

[mrs_p]

46. sorry, calling my husband my lover

would just be plain ol' cheesy (for us) - people should call their partners (what i use) whatever they want to call them - girlfriend, partner, husband, SO (or even, lover)

[Joe the Revelator]

26. Come on now...I refer to my "wife" as my "partner" 9/10 times...to term her only as my "wife"

Attaches a label to her that is already unequal. "Partner" means someone with an equal stake in the relationship.

[dsc]

29. I can see that argument when it is a marriage between a man and a woman

but in our case it is either a wife wife or husband husband pairing and thus the words are equal.

[Joe the Revelator]

34. I don't agree...I think you're using semantics to get mad when its obvious no offense was meant.

[dsc]

36. then what is wrong with the word wife?

You brought it up and called wife a more pejorative word than partner. So if it isn't a male/female thing then what is it?

[geckosfeet]

32. husbands and wives all over the country call themselves partners.

[smalll]

38. Husband and wife?!?

Really? Think about it for a second now. Do you really want to claim for gay married couples to call themselves that? Wouldn't that instead be an unfortunate step backwards in that it would necessarily prompt the old question, "who plays the man and who plays the woman?" Or as per lesbians, it would imply that one of them always has to be a "bull dyke" and the other a "lipstick lesbian."

[dsc]

39. I meant that males be called husband and females be called wives

I assumed people would get that.

[stlsaxman]

64. are they husband and wife BEFORE they "make It official"?

no, they are partners, or a couple....

I got NO gay bashing from his joke- and the round of warm applause it got led me to believe that a majority of the people at the dinner didn't either. i thought it was a blatant sticking it to the RW H8ers...

[TankLV]

91. I refer to and introduce mine as "my Partner".. what else am I to use?!!!

seems the most descriptive to me...

[BR_Parkway]

102. I didn't find it offensive - but then I call my other half my partner all

the time. I personally like the word as it sums up what we are to each other in so many more ways than what I associate with the term 'husband'. From the way he treats Michelle, it seems that they are partners as well - and I don't get the idea that he thinks of that term as diminished.

I guess because I'm gay, I saw the gay reference first, then made the connection to the political starting point.

[Teaser]

11. everybody's got an opinion.

glad you got to express yours.

[shireen]

12. a very touching photo

so emotional ... who are they? I bet they have an amazing life story.

[dsc]

17. They are Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon

from their marriage in 2004, they remarried in 2008 when it was legal and Del died shortly thereafter. They had been a couple for 51 years in that photo and 55 when they remarried.

[AllentownJake]

14. I don't know I've heard alot of married heterosexual people call each other partners

I think that you are reaching here. :shrug:

[polichick]

15. Maybe he should have run it past a few gay friends (if he didn't) because...

...this straight woman who is a big supporter of gay rights took it as a sign that the issue is on his mind and he appreciates that the people of Iowa, who made his run official and gave him a big boost, are now doing the same thing for gay couples.

(I think he used the term "partners" because he was talking about himself and another straight man.)

[ruggerson]

23. My objection to is is that he has never publicly commented on Iowa, Vermont, Maine

the biggest civil rights watersheds in decades which were on the front pages in major newspapers.

He's never uttered a word about it - it's as if it doesn't exist.

And then the first thing out of his mouth about the subject is a joke at a Correspondent's dinner.

For many people who have been fighting for marriage equality for fifteen to twenty years, his attitude is paternalistic and dismissive.

Certainly not the "Fierce advocate" he claimed he would be.

[ecstatic]

30. The president DID comment on the Iowa ruling nt

[ruggerson]

31. No he didn't

he personally has not uttered a word about it.

The WH press office issued a response which reaffirmed his opposition to marriage equality, but the President has said absolutely nothing.

Until last night.

[Lex]

41. Linky?

nt

[stray cat]

24. I thought it was a tribute to Iowa legalizing same sex marriage - how was it negative?

[Joe the Revelator]

35. Because some will use anything, even semantics, to smear Obama as a anti-gay bigot.

[Barb in Atl]

27. Bear with me, this may take a minute...

I'm a big fan of Castle, the new show on ABC? I like the lead actor Fillion (from Buffy & Firefly). But they did a show about some (pagan?) religion where the big, black, scary looking guy was murdering people to find the passport to sneak his criminal brother from Nigeria(?) into the country. It was ritualistic. I'm not sure, I think they said the religion was Ondoon or something like that.

Immediately, my hackles went up. I can't TELL you how tired I am of stories about crazy, homicidal religions being tied to folks of color (at least in the way portrayed by some books, movies and tv).

So I understand where you're coming from here. My eldest brother was married in Mass 4 years ago to my new brother-in-law. My mom wouldn't go. I get real defensive when folks are offensive or critical of lgbt folks.

But I didn't see what you saw, feel what you felt from Pres. Obama's joke. I actually liked the reference and the fact that it reminded me that there are 5 states (and soon to be more) that recognize same-sex marriage. I hope the number of states that change their policy grows like an avalanche.

On the other hand, maybe not-black folks don't get my internal shudder when there's a story about ritualistic killings in some religion (associated with folks of color).

We are hypersensitive to stuff because there is still discrimination, stereotyping and lots more work to do.

So I empathize and understand where you're coming from, but there will be lots who don't because not everyone is willing to consider life in someone else's shoes.

[Zenlitened]

28. I'm hoping that this is a sign he's ready to start talking about the issue.

I should say, I'm making a determined effort to hope that this is the case. Because in all honesty I'm not a very hopeful or hope-filled person these days, preferring facts, actions and plain talk instead.

In any event, and as others have pointed out, we are at a remarkable period in American history with regard to gay and lesbian rights, and marriage equality in particular.

Pres. Obama has disappointed me with his stance on marriage equality from the start. But is always possible to make a clean break from the days of political calculation, religious conditioning, lingering bigotry or whatever it is that makes such an exceptional man fall short on the topic of marriage equality.

In other words, he's fully capable of stepping up to the next level -- as literally millions of Americans have -- and support marriage fairness for gay and lesbian couples without apologies, without qualifiers, as the law of the land from coast to coast. Just say out loud, "fair is fair, live and let live."

He can do it. He ought to do it. I hope he will do it. Because a few simple words from Pres. Obama would lend a whole lot of momentum to this wonderful change taking place in America today.

[snowdays]

44. I do not think he is at all. He is stalling on gays in the military as

it is. "marriage" would be a whole new level and he is not on the first level yet.

[Honeycombe8]

48. It's not O's decision. It's what the military leaders think that counts.

Congress and the administration (whoever the administration is) will ALWAYS take their cues on issues that affect the military, from the military leaders.

It sounds like the military leaders are getting there.

[Zenlitened]

75. " It's what the military leaders think that counts."

Yikes. Really? There's no way for the president to show leadership on an issue, instead he (or she) must wait until the military grants permission?

:wow:

[Honeycombe8]

103. Now you're understanding. All Presidents have always said, to my

recollection, that they make decisions that affect the military in conjunction with conferring with military leaders.

They don't change the budgets drastically w/o checking with the Defense Dept. and military leaders. They don't make big strategic decisions about wars w/o conferring with military leaders. They don't institute drafts w/o conferring with military leaders.

This is not to say that the Presidents don't say what they want to do. They do. But they are not going to do something that the highest level and respected military leaders say will significantly affect the military in a detrimental way.

The leaders are getting there. Colin Powell has made sounds along the lines that maybe it's time for military leaders to think about DADT and whether it's working for the country these days. He didn't say DADT should be done away with. Just that maybe it should be discussed and reconsidered. It sounds like it's heading that way.

[Zenlitened]

104. He should lead. They should follow. I think your understanding of this issue...

... is years out of date.

The conferring, the consulting, the discussing... it's been going on for quite a while.

The military doesn't get caught unawares on issues like this. They've been awake to it since DADT was first enacted, at the least. And Pres. Obama made it clear during the campaign that he would integrate the military. If he says now, "This change is coming, get prepared and stand by for orders"... they'll do exactly that. There isn't going to be a mutiny over DADT.

Pres. Obama has made it very clear that he wants to strike down DADT. Let's support him on that, instead of making excuses for those who oppose him.

[Honeycombe8]

106. I know the thinking about it has been going on since the 1980's at least.

That's how DADT got passed. Although our gay friends don't like it (with good reason), at the time it was passed, it was a big step forward for the military and at least allowed gay people to be in the military. Before DADT, people could delve into someone's personal behavior and background and try to uncover a gay lifestyle; if they did, the soldier could be discharged. All without ever admitting s/he was gay. So DADT was a step forward, considering what was before.

The military is different from other government branches, IMO. It's stodgy, regimented (of course), and the military guys/gals live in close quarters...sleeping in the same area, dressing together, showering together, living in submarines together for months at a time. The concern the military leaders have about the effect of having openly gay people among non-gay people in such situations is reasonable to many. Doesn't mean it is well-founded. But it's possible that reasonable people could differ on whether it's a good idea or not. I myself don't know, not knowing much about the military.

Most Presidents and other leaders would look to the military itself to decide whether something would be harmful to the military. If it turns into a civil rights matter, then the military won't be asked. I don't know why that avenue isn't being taken.

I'm not making excuses for anyone. Just because I can understand someone having a different point of view doesn't make me one who gives excuses to the other point of view. You want people to understand your point of view, right? So do others, who have a different point of view. I have no horse in the race, so maybe that's why I can see both points of view.

BTW, I am a woman who is pro-choice. But I can understand the pro-life point of view. I disagree with it. But I understand it.

[Zenlitened]

77. Well, I'm trying to be optimistic. Which, I'll grant you...

... is entirely out of character for me. :D

Seriously, public opinion is getting WAY out in front of Pres. Obama on this. It's hard to imagine he isn't savvy enough to catch up.

But we'll know very soon, I guess. This is a moment to be seized, and he ought to be able to recognize it. If he lets it go by... well, silence can say a lot sometimes, too. :D

[onetwo]

33. The fact that he considers them "different" doesn't mean that he believes gay marr is "less equal."

[Lex]

40. yes, separate but equal

always proven to be a great viewpoint for equality

[handmade34]

43. separate but equal has already been tested

and failed in the courts. There is no equal until my gay friends can legally marry. That being said, having read President Obama's books and paid attention to his speeches, etc., I have to believe he is up against the forces of politics and is wisely playing the game in hopes of making change that cannot fail. I was delighted by his comments about Iowa last night and thought it was said positively and in such a way to bring attention to the changing mood of the country.

I want what many people do, lots of improvement to our economy, politics and social structure real fast, right now! We have been waiting a long time! I credit Pres. Obama with wisdom beyond his years and the ability to patiently do it correctly.

[Lex]

42. It's funny see, because he & Axelrod are NOT the 'teh gay' but they could get married in Iowa!

Wait. What part is the joke?

[MadBadger]

45. And Here I thought Obama was telling a harmless joke...Not on DU!

[Lex]

47. like most jokes, it all depends on one's perspective

nt

[Phx_Dem]

105. No kidding. Talk about thin-skinned.

[RomanHoliday]

49. I thought it was a pretty brilliant joke--

He wasn't portraying it in a negative manner-- I think used the word "partners" because saying "couple" would've given away the punchline too soon.

I took it as how big the idea of "bromance" has become these days.

[JI7]

50. do you think Obama was offensive to people of color by referring to Boner that way ?

[TwilightZone]

52. Interesting point.

[dsc]

53. honestly I felt it wasn't exactly in great taste

but since Obama is a person of color I felt he had a much greater right to tell that joke just like I would have had a greater right to tell the other joke since I am gay.

[cooolandrew]

51. I didn't really read anything that negative into his joke. I think it was more saying that he was >

unphased by the wild allegations made about him during the campaign. That if he was gay person he now had the right to make it official in Iowa. The joke more was highlighting they made his campaign a serious contender in Iowa and Axelrod was a partner in that effort. For the Democratic party to make it possible in all states is just not viable at this poin that is why it has to be a state by state struggle till federal government have the politcal coverage to pass it nationwide. Some see the issue idealistic but with NRA types out there are some issues they tred very carefully on, but hey really making traction so the change is enevitable whatever the President's views maybe.

[ProSense]

54. Seriously,

let's call on Congress to ban jokes.

How fucking ridiculous.

[Realtalk]

55. Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out what the problem is.

This post has a very self-serving, axe to grind kind of vibe, rather than a genuine issue.

[dsc]

56. yeah

I bet if a gay president told a joke about blacks going somewhere for basic rights that would be AOK with you all. Especially given that Obama had no response at all to the gay marriage victories prior to that joke. But since you have all your rights I get that you don't give a shit.

[ProSense]

57. It's a joke. People tell them all the time. Not everyone lays in wait trying to

jump on a joke to over analyze it or use it to further some ulterior motive. You seem to try to find anything to justify your post. There was nothing wrong with the joke, it was funny and harmless (despite your attempt to spin it as otherwise).


Wanda Sykes is one of the funniest people around. If you want to know what this OP reminds me of, turn on CNN and watch the hyperventilating over her jokes.

[dsc]

58. again you have your rights

so I guess it doesn't matter to you. Oh and were you upset about Kramer's racial jokes?

[ProSense]

59. I don't care.

It was a joke. Period.

[dsc]

61. so Kramer's jokes were just jokes

I bet if I search those threads I won't find anything remotely like that coming from you.

[firedupdem]

62. Do you honestly equate that vile, violent shit Kramer said with the same

words Obama spoke last night?

Kramer said something like "Years ago we would have had you hanging..." You really think this is the same?

[dsc]

63. No but apparently the other poster does

It is his rule that jokes don't matter. Those were both jokes, were they not?

[firedupdem]

65. nah...I think kramer was pissed that some black folks were leaving

his show and heckling him. He wasn't joking, he was spouting off his true feelings.

[ProSense]

69. Bullshit. n/t

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zenlitened]

83. It's a GLBT thing. You wouldn't understand.

"They expect gay marriage overnight."

:spray:

[ruggerson]

86. You're full of it

I've been working for marriage equality since before Baehr Vs Miike, going on more than fifteen years.

So have LAMBDA and Evan Wolfson and countless others.

I'm sorry you make such stupid generalizations about "gay white" people, but many of us have been in this for the long haul and never had any expectations this would come easily. Most of us thought we were in for a decades long fight.

And, btw, we don't have "lifestyles", we have lives.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

92. either jokes are just jokes or they are not

evidently when it is a joke offensive to blacks, then it is worthy of condemnation but when it merely offends gays then it isn't. I get it. Blacks count, we don't. I truely get it. Do I think they are equally offensive, no. But if the rule is jokes aren't ever offensive, then they aren't ever offensive.

[ProSense]

93. You need to reread

comments 62 and 63 because you are now contradicting yourself.

No one ever said that there weren't offensive jokes, but you seem to want to compare Obama's joke to Kramer's to make your point.

[dsc]

94. did you or did you not write

lets have Congress outlaw jokes? A yes or no answer is all that is needed. Did you write that or not? Note the word offensive isn't in there.

In case you forgot here is your post, verbatim.

Seriously,
let's call on Congress to ban jokes.

How fucking ridiculous.

[ProSense]

95. What about your comparing Obama's joke to Kramer's?

It's as if you don't see a difference or you're bringing it up to obscure the fact that you reaching to making to make a point.

I made the comment about Congress banning all jokes because, unlike you, I can distinguish a harmless joke from one that can be perceived as or is actually offensive.

Now why are you attempting to compare Obama's joke to Kramer's?

[dsc]

100. I was applying your rule

You said jokes are harmless I was applying that rule. It isn't my fault you were being less than honest when you laid down the rule.

[Realtalk]

60. Ok...

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know Obama was supposed to comment on these gay marriage victories especially since he politically supports civil unions. The fact that you throw some bullshit about Black people in someone's face, someone that you don't even know is Black or not, makes you look woefully foolish. You can defend gay rights without bringing up Black folks every hour on the hour, but then slamming them when some don't agree with your stance. I guess your natural defense is weak. But you are correct: the rights that Blacks fought for, the struggle they endured (are enduring) = the rights gays are fighting for. Sure they are on the same playing field completely.

[dsc]

66. Yea I do expect a president who got over 70% of the gay vote

to comment. Sorry but I really do. And yes, I do think discrimination against gays is as evil as discrimination against blacks but I know for many here, we don't matter, I do get that.

[ProSense]

70. I expect him to be able to tell jokes without

people trying to distort his comments for self-serving agendas.

I'm sure that every joke he told could be exploited by anyone who wants to do so.

[Lex]

67. Fantastic strawman: "let's call on Congress to ban jokes"

:thumbsup:

[ProSense]

68. Straw man?

What bullshit. It's not like this is the first opportunistic attempt to use an Obama joke to justify threads like these.

And it will not be the last such attempt. Give me a break.

[Lex]

73. Sorry. You appear not to understand

what a straw man logical fallacy is, but nonetheless you made an excellent one.

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

i.e. -- let's call on Congress to ban jokes

:rofl:

[ProSense]

74. No,

it's fully appropriate given the frequency with which this occurs. People are pretty desperate when the only thing the can find to justify their outrage is a simple joke.

[Lex]

76. You just don't know how to take a compliment I guess. nt

[ruggerson]

71. What' fucking ridiculous is how completely incapable you are of getting this

[ProSense]

72. No it's fucking riddiculous that the joke is being used to justify this nonsense.

You post about Wanda Sykes, whose jokes were very funny and could be seen as far more offensive. Why jump on this joke?

Ludicrous.

[ruggerson]

78. Because Obama has not even commented yet on the greatest civil rights advances

in thirty years - Iowa, Maine and Vermont, all in the space of a few weeks.

And the very first time he ever utters something about it - it's a joke at a correspondent's dinner.

Remind you of anyone?

[ProSense]

79. Oh please.

That's ridiculous.

[ruggerson]

81. Not to people who care about marriage equality it isn't

[Zenlitened]

82. It's a GLBT thing. You wouldn't understand. - n/t

[ProSense]

84. What's a "GLBT thing"

...exploting a joke by for self-serving purpose?

I don't think so. I fully understand what this OP is about.

[Zenlitened]

85. "I fully understand what this OP is about." Now THAT is comedy gold!

See, because you emphatically stated something that is demonstrably untrue! That's what makes it funny! It's the dichotomy of saying one thing while... oh, well. Maybe you're right: Comedy is best when it doesn't need to be explained.

:rofl:

[ProSense]

87. "Comedy is best when it doesn't need to be explained."

Maybe that's why I didn't find your comment funny, and why the OP is a desperate attempt to link a joke to the the issue.

[Zenlitened]

88. Humor... often it's about subtlety and nuance, too.

But if you're more of a declarative-statement, I-Have-Spoken! type, that's okay too. :hi:

[Dark]

96. I'm gay and I thought it was funny. The partners part was just because it wouldn't have packed the

same punch if he'd said "husbands."

Personally, I prefer the word "spouse." Gender neutral, long history of meaning someone you're married to. Fits perfectly.

[MadBadger]

99. If he had said spouse, or husbands, it would have ruined the setup of the joke.

[camera obscura]

97. And here I thought you'd say he was kidding on the square because

he really did secretly get married to Axelrod. :P

[PretzelWarrior]

98. oh no. you're offended. WAHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:((

[WinkyDink]

101. Al didn't coin "kidding on the square." Have used it all my life. I thus see your point, but not

sure if I agree!