The President comes out in support of gay marriage!

Page 4 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

10 May 2012, 7:00 pm

For those against gay marriage, could you please list the ways that legalizing gay marriage would actually hurt you or society or anyone or anything else? Please be specific.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

10 May 2012, 7:07 pm

Gay marriage is now mandatory. Thank you for your cooperation.


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


NowhereMan1966
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 142
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

10 May 2012, 10:21 pm

Dox47 wrote:
I'll continue my recent lazy posting streak and let Radley Balko say what I was thinking:

Radley Balko wrote:
I’m sorry, but I’m not really seeing the bravery or heroism, here. It’s important, sure. And it’s historic. And it might prove to be an effective use of the bully pulpit.

It’s also about f*cking time. Basically, Obama announced to the country today that he, personally, is cool with gay marriage. It’s a position he has allegedly held all along, but didn’t have the political spine to state publicly prior to this afternoon. Even then, he only made his statement after carefully strategizing with his aides to make sure it wouldn’t damage him politically. Or I guess to put it more accurately, once his aides convinced him that his gutless silence was hurting him more than what he said today possibly could.

Obama’s statement doesn’t change a single policy. He has basically adopted a federalist approach to the issue. To my knowledge, gay marriage also happens to be the only issue in which Obama embraces federalism. Obama apparently believes the states should be able to discriminate when it comes to marriage benefits, but if they allow cancer and AIDS patients to smoke pot, he asserts the supremacy of federal law, and sends in the SWAT teams. What a twisted set of priorities.

Moreover, because the federal government is actively discriminating against homosexual couples based on whether or not the state where they reside recognizes their marriage, there’s actually a decent equal protection argument argument against letting the states decide this issue. Or, better yet, for the federal government to just stop conferring special benefits onto heterosexual couples. Or, still better yet, to stop conferring benefits onto married couples at all.* And I say that as someone who generally believes in federalism. (And, to be fair, who isn’t married.)

I’ve been happy to praise Obama on those unfortunately few occasions when there’s been reason to do so. But this? This is a president half-assing it while still keeping plenty of political cover, and on an issue in which he could have effected real change had he had the courage of his convictions years ago.

As leadership goes, it’s little more than acknowledging the direction the wind is blowing. It hardly merits a new chapter for Profiles in Courage.

(*Insert boilerplate libertarian disclaimer about how government shouldn’t be in the business of sanctioning relationships
in the first place.)

Bold is mine.
http://www.theagitator.com/2012/05/09/o ... -marriage/


That's I think is the best compromise, I'm just saying under our legal system, it is up to the States to decide but the ideal is to work within each State to get rid of special tax exemptions and so forth. I sometimes think the push for other forms of marriage is also motivated by money and/or more benefits. I'd like to see those benefits eliminated and go to more of a flat or excise tax.

Getting back to the States for a sec, if that route is chosen, we basically get 50 laboratories to see how different systems work and as well have diversity of differing thoughts while trying to accomodate everyone.

I think if this form of marriage is allowed, then how we can say to a couple of groups they can marry but others cannot. What about polygamy or group marriage? So I think the LGBT community is really trying the wrong tack, they should be trying to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Let the churches decide who to marry or not marry and let each individual make up their mind on this. I get flack from both sides on this, I admit I'm a little schizoid myself but I think the libertarian compromise is the best but again, the Federal Constitution is really silent on the matter so it actually turns it over to each State in a legal sense.

Lou Dobbs made a good case on this in his show on Fox Business tonite, he says we need to concentrate on making traditional marriage stronger among ourselves since in recent years, it hasn't had a good track record and get a hand on births out of wedlock so we also need to get that house in order too.

I think we got off t rack about the Civil War and so on, but I'll leave that hang, maybe for another time. This is my last post on the matter.



NowhereMan1966
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 142
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

10 May 2012, 10:25 pm

DogsWithoutHorses wrote:
NowhereMan1966 wrote:
Delphiki wrote:
Traditional marriage? I haven't heard of people giving cattle lately


Hmmmm, good one! ;) There is a side of me that wonders if arranged marriages should be brought back, but then again, I would be afraid of who my parents would have matched me with. :) At least though, this poor ASer, me, would have a spouse, I suck at dating anyhoo. :p Cattle, well, don't have the place for them. :)


Haha yeah, dating blows. Sucks women aren't chattel anymore brah.


Can't you take a joke? Just needed a humor break. As Rodney Dangerfield would say, "tough crowd."



DogsWithoutHorses
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2012
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,146
Location: New York

10 May 2012, 10:43 pm

NowhereMan1966 wrote:
DogsWithoutHorses wrote:
NowhereMan1966 wrote:
Delphiki wrote:
Traditional marriage? I haven't heard of people giving cattle lately


Hmmmm, good one! ;) There is a side of me that wonders if arranged marriages should be brought back, but then again, I would be afraid of who my parents would have matched me with. :) At least though, this poor ASer, me, would have a spouse, I suck at dating anyhoo. :p Cattle, well, don't have the place for them. :)


Haha yeah, dating blows. Sucks women aren't chattel anymore brah.


Can't you take a joke? Just needed a humor break. As Rodney Dangerfield would say, "tough crowd."


I take jokes just fine when they're actually funny.

The fact is marriage has always been more about legal rights and property than the spiritual union of two people. You can't deny people legal rights provided by a secular government under the guise of religious belief or even just traditionalism.
I personally feel that all official government records should just replace the word marriage with civil union and define that as between two legal adults (sorry poly people, that solution is more complicated). Have it be the same as it is now in every way but that and let the zealots have their special word all to themselves. When people want legal right and recognition they go to the government, when they want a religious ceremony devoid of any significance outside of religious belief, they obtain that from a religious institution.
States do not individually get to decide to deny people rights.


_________________
If your success is defined as being well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference, then we don?t want successful leaders. We want great leaders- who are unbought, unbound, unafraid, and unintimidated to tell the truth.


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

10 May 2012, 10:56 pm

DogsWithoutHorses wrote:
I take jokes just fine when they're actually funny.

This one was.

Quote:
The fact is marriage has always been more about legal rights and property than the spiritual union of two people.

This is a depressing point of view.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Billybones
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 140

11 May 2012, 9:52 am

I am delighted to see President Obama finally come out on the right side of this. But as important as it is symbolically, it doesn't really change any of the facts on the ground. Same-sex marriage is still not recognized at the federal level (which in the U.S. is where it counts, "states' rights" rhetoric notwithstanding). LGBTs still have no protection under federal laws (& the laws of most states) against discrimination in employment, housing or public accommodations. That's right - I can be fired from my job tomorrow, simply for being gay, & would have no legal recourse. So all said, declarations of victory are way, way premature.

We have made significant progress, especially with the repeal of the ban on military service ("don't ask don't tell") and with legislation & court decisions in several states. But the struggle for LGBT equality in the U.S. has often seemed to be a case of "one step forward two steps back", as we are reminded by what just happened in North Carolina. And we stand to lose everything if the November election results in a Republican-controlled Congress & Romney in the presidency.

Moreover, I'm still not sure if this is a net political winner for Obama or not. Just a few years ago it would have been political suicide, so I guess that counts as progress. But the problem with LGBT issues in general, & same-sex marriage in particular, is that there are only 2 constituencies that care passionately about it - LGBT people themselves, their families & supporters on one side; and conservative Christians on the other side. In the U.S., the latter FAR outnumber the former. That's why we've made so little progress compared to Canada, Argentina, South Africa & many western European countries - the rise of LGBT equality as a political movement has coincided with the rise of fundamentalist Christianity as a political movement, which is absolutely opposed to ANY societal accommodation to homosexuality. On LGBT rights the Republican Party hasn't budged. It's true that conservative Christians weren't going to vote for Obama anyway, but this may yet cost Obama & the Democrats a few votes in a few swing states in an election that looks like it will have a razor-thin margin of victory either way.

Obama's campaign apparently has calculated that this is a net political winner. If so, we've come a long way. For the life of me, I hope they're right. If they're not, we're in deep trouble. In spite of all the progress, we're only one election away from losing everything.



BuyerBeware
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,471
Location: PA, USA

12 May 2012, 6:20 am

Ancalagon wrote:
BuyerBeware wrote:
I see it as a civil rights issue, very cut and dried--

I've always been bothered by this sort of thing. I mean, I can see how you might see it as a civil rights issue, but how can it seem cut and dried? I see people declaring it to be a right or a civil right all over the place, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone bother to explain why.


People are being denied equal protection under the law-- in terms of medical coverage, property law, in some cases visitation rights (barring abuse, no one can prevent spouses from seeing each other, say, in the hospital-- but angry relatives can say they do not want a "friend" around and legally it will stand).

That's less obvious than, say, telling someone they can't sit there because they have dark skin (or can't do that because they have a vagina). Maybe it's a smaller thing than the nightmares we've experienced (it being perfectly OK to kill a dark-skinned man or beat a woman), but it's not any different.

Quote:
mushroo wrote:
I think the only reason people do not see it as a simple gender discrimination issue is that they are squeamish about the mechanics of gay sex and/or hung up on a couple of bible passages.

Neither of those two things apply to me, but I can't see how it could be called a gender discrimination issue. No one gender is being forbidden anything.

I think you (and by 'you' I mean all the people who agree with you on this, not just you personally) should be careful when guessing other people's motivations. Especially people who you disagree with.


Well, you're not going to like this, either.

Gender discrimination?? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. I guess that depends on whether "homosexual male" and "homosexual female" are different genders than "heterosexual male" and "heterosexual female."

I think it's shitty old human nature-- we fear, despise, and revile that which is different from ourselves. Since heterosexuality is the majority orientation, it becomes "OK" to s**t on those who are other than heterosexual.

I'm going to laugh my ass off when America is run by gay Hispanics, and straight white Protestants are howling about how unfair it all is.


_________________
"Alas, our dried voices when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless, as wind in dry grass, or rats' feet over broken glass in our dry cellar." --TS Eliot, "The Hollow Men"


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

12 May 2012, 6:29 pm

BuyerBeware wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
BuyerBeware wrote:
I see it as a civil rights issue, very cut and dried--

I've always been bothered by this sort of thing. I mean, I can see how you might see it as a civil rights issue, but how can it seem cut and dried? I see people declaring it to be a right or a civil right all over the place, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone bother to explain why.


People are being denied equal protection under the law-- in terms of medical coverage, property law, in some cases visitation rights (barring abuse, no one can prevent spouses from seeing each other, say, in the hospital-- but angry relatives can say they do not want a "friend" around and legally it will stand).

The things you're mentioning here are cut and dried civil rights things. What I've been bothered by is people saying the marriage issue is a cut and dried civil rights thing.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


ghoti
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,596

12 May 2012, 8:18 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
BuyerBeware wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
BuyerBeware wrote:
I see it as a civil rights issue, very cut and dried--

I've always been bothered by this sort of thing. I mean, I can see how you might see it as a civil rights issue, but how can it seem cut and dried? I see people declaring it to be a right or a civil right all over the place, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone bother to explain why.


People are being denied equal protection under the law-- in terms of medical coverage, property law, in some cases visitation rights (barring abuse, no one can prevent spouses from seeing each other, say, in the hospital-- but angry relatives can say they do not want a "friend" around and legally it will stand).

The things you're mentioning here are cut and dried civil rights things. What I've been bothered by is people saying the marriage issue is a cut and dried civil rights thing.


It could by construed as a Civil Rights issue from the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia overturning the state law disallowing interracial marriage. In the ruling was this quote:

Quote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.


Though the context is that of race in this case.



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

12 May 2012, 8:55 pm

ghoti wrote:
It could by construed as a Civil Rights issue from the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia overturning the state law disallowing interracial marriage. In the ruling was this quote:

I have seen that analogy made before, but I don't find it convincing. There isn't any way to make a definition of marriage that makes sense that excludes interracial marriage, but there is for gay marriage.

It isn't that I can't see how someone could see it that way, but that I can't see how they could say the other position can't make sense.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


persian85033
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,869
Location: Phoenix

12 May 2012, 9:41 pm

I do think it's a good idea to give gays the same rights as every one else in that respect. My stylist told me her brother is gay, and I'm almost pretty sure one of my coworkers is and that he, well, he's not married, of course, but considers the other man he lives with his husband. I don't know my stylist's brothers, but she's a very nice person, and I do know my coworker, and he's one of my favorite people. I suppose it would mean a lot to her brother and him if they did approve this. I'd actually be very happy for them, even if the Church would frown on it. They're very nice people, and have always been very accepting, patient, and kind to me, and that's something I can't say for many people I've met.


_________________
"Of all God's creatures, there is only one that cannot be made slave of the leash. That one is the cat. If man could be crossed with the cat it would improve the man, but it would deteriorate the cat." - Mark Twain


Rocky
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,074
Location: Uhhh...Not Remulak

15 May 2012, 5:56 am

Better late than never. Now the Obama campaign can use this clip in their commercials:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRN9Y5Nvdqk[/youtube]



mattking96
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2012
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 168
Location: Wales

15 May 2012, 6:47 am

And that's why I hate Mitt Romney.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

15 May 2012, 12:19 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
I have seen that analogy made before, but I don't find it convincing. There isn't any way to make a definition of marriage that makes sense that excludes interracial marriage, but there is for gay marriage.

It isn't that I can't see how someone could see it that way, but that I can't see how they could say the other position can't make sense.


It isn't a question of whether there is a definition that makes sense--it's a question of whether you can make a definition that does not offend the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

There are many things that legislatures attempt to legislate that make sense--but if they offend the Constitution, they are void, insofar as they do so. It is not a case of whether same sex marriage is better, worse or incomparable with heterosexual marriage. It is a case of the law creating a benefit for one class of people and denying it to another class of people, without being able to demonstrate a public policy interest of sufficient merit to justify the constitutional offence.

I am perfectly comfortable with a person who believes that the purpose of marriage is procreation. But I am not content that they would attempt to impose that belief on other people.


_________________
--James


Billybones
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 140

15 May 2012, 1:34 pm

visagrunt wrote:
It isn't a question of whether there is a definition that makes sense--it's a question of whether you can make a definition that does not offend the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

There are many things that legislatures attempt to legislate that make sense--but if they offend the Constitution, they are void, insofar as they do so.


Um . . . not quite. Such laws would be void if and only if the Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional. The 14th amendment became part of the U.S. constitution in 1868, but for nearly a century, we had segregated schools, grossly unequal justice, laws banning interracial marriage, & a rigid racial caste system in place across much of the country.

As it would relate to gay rights, in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold state sodomy laws, which criminalized consensual homosexual relations between adults, even in the privacy of the home. This decision was finally reversed in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 by a 6-3 vote, with the majority striking down the Texas sodomy law on privacy grounds (4th amendment) and a concurring opinion striking them down on equal protection grounds (14th amendment).

The point is that it all comes down to the politics of the judges appointed to the court. Rights granted at one point in time can be taken away at another. Ultimately, the constitution that we're all taught to view with reverence is just words on a piece of paper. Besides, we all know that the conservative majority on the court today will choose to cite or ignore precedent in order to get the result it wants.