Obama on gay marriage

[Rank Amateur]

He is for and against gay marriage. Or maybe he isn''t. It''s too close to call.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i.html

 

[panda08]

He''s against gay marriage and against amending a state constitution to enshrine discrimination. Two separate issues.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Two separate sides of the same mouth.

 

[zhuzhu]

Hmm... I am not clear as in how you are reading the article. It is pretty clear to me that HE BELIEVES MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. He ALSO believes that it IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT''S BUSINESS TO DEFINE IT.

Just to give another example. He also believes that Jesus is the son of God, but he is not going to make a law to prohibit Jews from not believing this.

Where do you see the contradiction?

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 11/3/2008 1:19:12 AM
Author: zhuzhu
Where do you see the contradiction?

Um, judging from prior posts, anywhere and everywhere.

 

[Kaleigh]

I had thought he was more open to gay marriage.

I don''t know who to believe anymore. I am still on the fence.

 

[FrekeChild]

I don''t think he''s against gay marriage, he''s just not in favor of it. Basically I think his stance is that he''s going to leave it up to the states, and will not support a constitutional ban of it. However, it seems as though he supports civil unions.

"Opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban. Says he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. As stated on the Obama campaign Web site, he supports full civil unions that "give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights."

Says the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Advocated legislation that sought to expand federal hate crimes law to include sexual orientation and gender identity."

From CNN

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 11/3/2008 1:19:12 AM
Author: zhuzhu
Hmm... I am not clear as in how you are reading the article. It is pretty clear to me that HE BELIEVES MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. He ALSO believes that it IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT''S BUSINESS TO DEFINE IT.


Just to give another example. He also believes that Jesus is the son of God, but he is not going to make a law to prohibit Jews from not believing this.


Where do you see the contradiction?

I was talking to SO about this the other night. He likes the idea of marriage being something between men and women, something special and sacred. He also believes that gay people should be able to have legal unions, but called something else. Maybe everyone getting a civil union, and churches offering marriages as a separate institution. At any rate, it''s not all black and white, there are shades of grey.

Personally, I think if you don''t want a gay marriage, don''t marry someone gay. End of story. *shrugs*

 

[pennquaker09]

I can respect that because of religious reasons people think of marriage as something between a man and a woman, but I do feel as though I am married. I think more than a tax break or any of that stuff, marriage is a feeling that you and the person that you love have for each other. Of course, it would be great to have some legal standing without having to pay an arm and a leg for it. And let me tell y''all, it costs a LOT.

I''m trusting what Obama has said regarding his position. I think the thing that would make me most happy would be having the Defense of Marriage Act repealed and civil unions legalized. But I don''t know how that is going to come about. I don''t understand why it''s something that has to be voted on and debated. I don''t want to make it seem like we''re entitled to anything, but I sort of feel like not having the benefits that come along with marriage make us second class.

 

[Erin]

Maybe he just ''tolerates'' them with all his country-loving heart

 

[neatfreak]

He is against gay marriage but is for gay couples having the same rights to benefits, children, etc. as heterosexual couples (i.e., civil unions, domestic partner benefits, whatever as long as it isn't called "marriage" which he believes should stay in the church and isn't a state/federal issue).

It seems pretty clear to me...and quite honestly I agree with him that marriage has been traditionally a church thing. Let the churches keep "marriage" and give anyone "married" outside a church (heterosexual couples too) a civil union instead. Then it gets rid of the issue, the church can keep marriage but everyone can have equal rights in the eyes of the state. Makes sense to me...

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 11/3/2008 12:14:49 PM
Author: neatfreak
He is against gay marriage but is for gay couples having the same rights to benefits, children, etc. as heterosexual couples (i.e., civil unions, domestic partner benefits, whatever as long as it isn''t church sanctioned marriage which he believes should stay in the church and isn''t a state/federal issue).

It seems pretty clear to me...

I feel like I''m constantly quoting you, NeatFreak--sorry, you just tend to sum things up really well.

This seems pretty clear to me as well--in fact McCain has stated the same thing--that he is for civil unions and equal protection under the law (again, going back to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment), but not supportive of gay "marriage" either at a state or national level.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Date: 11/3/2008 2:07:29 AM
Author: FrekeChild
I don''t think he''s against gay marriage, he''s just not in favor of it.

Do I need to point out how absurd this is?



Look. You CAN"T be opposed to something and then say that you won''t support legislation which enacts your opposition. It doesn''t make SENSE. As a legislator you are supposed to present legislation which brings to life your beliefs. IT''S WHAT YOU DO AS A SENATOR!

The only way for States to stave off the activist Judges is to get the man/woman language into their constitutions. If they don''t, the laws on which the people vote will get thrown out as un-constitutional. It HAS to be a constitutional amendment. BHO should know this.

His position is a cop out. He wants (and is getting it) both ways. Where is the character so many talk about? There is none.

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 11/3/2008 12:25:36 PM
Author: Rank Amateur

Date: 11/3/2008 2:07:29 AM
Author: FrekeChild
I don''t think he''s against gay marriage, he''s just not in favor of it.

Do I need to point out how absurd this is?


Look. You CAN''T be opposed to something and then say that you won''t support legislation which enacts your opposition. It doesn''t make SENSE. As a legislator you are supposed to present legislation which brings to life your beliefs. IT''S WHAT YOU DO AS A SENATOR!

The only way for States to stave off the activist Judges is to get the man/woman language into their constitutions. If they don''t, the laws on which the people vote will get thrown out as un-constitutional. It HAS to be a constitutional amendment. BHO should know this.

His position is a cop out. He wants (and is getting it) both ways. Where is the character so many talk about? There is none.

I like how you didn''t quote the rest of what I said which happened to detail the rest of his thoughts on gay marriage and civil unions. He is against gay ''marriage'' because of his religious beliefs but FOR civil unions. As for the not in favor part of it, he''s not about to take rights away from individuals that have gotten married because their state said so.

According to your logic, he is opposed to gay marriage, but that he won''t support a constitutional ban on it. Basically what he is saying is that he''s personally not FOR it to be called gay marriage, instead civil unions, but that he feels it isn''t his place, or the government''s place to dictate who can and who can''t have the rights to be legally connected to another human being.

I''m tired of reading your arguments. You will pick on every single inconsistency and beat it to death, and then some. Anything and everything he says, you disagree with. Anything he does wrong, you''re going to try to blow up into a fiasco. Fine, you''re entitled to your opinion, but it''s my opinion that this is one really tired argument.

But I''m sure you''ll continue saying it''s a cop-out. But I just hope you realize that you''re probably not changing anyone''s votes.

 

[Erin]

I don''t get it.

John McCain also opposes same-sex marriage and opposes amending the United States Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, arguing that the issue should be left to the states to decide.

What''s your point of all this?

 

[sklingem]

Date: 11/3/2008 12:42:54 PM
Look. You CAN''T be opposed to something and then say that you won''t support legislation which enacts your opposition. It doesn''t make SENSE. As a legislator you are supposed to present legislation which brings to life your beliefs. IT''S WHAT YOU DO AS A SENATOR!

The only way for States to stave off the activist Judges is to get the man/woman language into their constitutions. If they don''t, the laws on which the people vote will get thrown out as un-constitutional. It HAS to be a constitutional amendment. BHO should know this.

His position is a cop out. He wants (and is getting it) both ways. Where is the character so many talk about? There is none.

[/quote]

I think that the term "complexity" is lost on some people. That is why a lot of Republican voters would rather see Joe the Plumber as President. Wake up! The world is not black and white! For or against us!

 

[panda08]

Date: 11/3/2008 12:54:36 PM
Author: rob09

Date: 11/3/2008 12:42:54 PM
Look. You CAN''T be opposed to something and then say that you won''t support legislation which enacts your opposition. It doesn''t make SENSE. As a legislator you are supposed to present legislation which brings to life your beliefs. IT''S WHAT YOU DO AS A SENATOR!

The only way for States to stave off the activist Judges is to get the man/woman language into their constitutions. If they don''t, the laws on which the people vote will get thrown out as un-constitutional. It HAS to be a constitutional amendment. BHO should know this.

His position is a cop out. He wants (and is getting it) both ways. Where is the character so many talk about? There is none.

I think that the term ''complexity'' is lost on some people. That is why a lot of Republican voters would rather see Joe the Plumber as President. Wake up! The world is not black and white! For or against us! [/quote]
Thank you! You said it a lot better than I could!

 

[MoonWater]

Haha, wow! Freke took on a harsh tone, that should tell you something.

And rob, perusual, right on! The sad thing is that it's not all that complex. It's quite simple to understand and has been explained quite well in this thread.

 

[FrekeChild]

I''m tired and cranky. Can you tell?

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 11/3/2008 12:20:42 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 11/3/2008 12:14:49 PM

Author: neatfreak

He is against gay marriage but is for gay couples having the same rights to benefits, children, etc. as heterosexual couples (i.e., civil unions, domestic partner benefits, whatever as long as it isn''t church sanctioned marriage which he believes should stay in the church and isn''t a state/federal issue).


It seems pretty clear to me...

I feel like I''m constantly quoting you, NeatFreak--sorry, you just tend to sum things up really well.


This seems pretty clear to me as well--in fact McCain has stated the same thing--that he is for civil unions and equal protection under the law (again, going back to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment), but not supportive of gay ''marriage'' either at a state or national level.

Haha, thanks NEL. Being in public policy that''s one of the first things they teach you-simplify and summarize!

 

[sklingem]

Date: 11/3/2008 1:05:49 PM
Author: MoonWater

And rob, perusual, right on! The sad thing is that it''s not all that complex. It''s quite simple to understand and has been explained quite well in this thread.

Well - I did not want to rub it in by saying that even simple things may seem complex to others. But that''s me. Nice to a fault.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 11/3/2008 12:20:42 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 11/3/2008 12:14:49 PM

Author: neatfreak

He is against gay marriage but is for gay couples having the same rights to benefits, children, etc. as heterosexual couples (i.e., civil unions, domestic partner benefits, whatever as long as it isn't church sanctioned marriage which he believes should stay in the church and isn't a state/federal issue).


It seems pretty clear to me...

I feel like I'm constantly quoting you, NeatFreak--sorry, you just tend to sum things up really well.


This seems pretty clear to me as well--in fact McCain has stated the same thing--that he is for civil unions and equal protection under the law (again, going back to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment), but not supportive of gay 'marriage' either at a state or national level.

Just to clarify, McCain does not support domestic partner benefits or civil unions for same sex couples. I say that based on his many, many contradictory statements on the subject. He certainly doesn't support EQUAL rights. Bottom line is this: if at all, McCain supports the type of legal contract that grants VERY few rights. He also would NEVER make it an agenda issue, so whether he would support it is a moot point in terms of policy. Under a McCain administration, gay couples wouldn't have rights.

On the original topic, Obama's position is as neatfreak succinctly put it. However, it's sort of obvious that the logic component is missing in this position... last time I checked atheists could obtain a marriage license from the government. There is obviously a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage, but both are considered marriage as long as the couple in question is an opposite-sex one, religion aside.

ETA better explanation

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 11/3/2008 4:02:32 PM
Author: WishfulThinking

Date: 11/3/2008 12:20:42 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 11/3/2008 12:14:49 PM

Author: neatfreak

He is against gay marriage but is for gay couples having the same rights to benefits, children, etc. as heterosexual couples (i.e., civil unions, domestic partner benefits, whatever as long as it isn''t church sanctioned marriage which he believes should stay in the church and isn''t a state/federal issue).


It seems pretty clear to me...

I feel like I''m constantly quoting you, NeatFreak--sorry, you just tend to sum things up really well.


This seems pretty clear to me as well--in fact McCain has stated the same thing--that he is for civil unions and equal protection under the law (again, going back to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment), but not supportive of gay ''marriage'' either at a state or national level.

Just to clarify, McCain does not support domestic partner benefits or civil unions for same sex couples. I say that based on his many, many contradictory statements on the subject. He certainly doesn''t support EQUAL rights. Bottom line is this: if at all, McCain supports the type of legal contract that grants VERY few rights. He also would NEVER make it an agenda issue, so whether he would support it is a moot point in terms of policy. Under a McCain administration, gay couples wouldn''t have rights.

On the original topic, Obama''s position is as neatfreak succinctly put it. However, it''s sort of obvious that the logic component is missing in this position... last time I checked atheists could obtain a marriage license from the government. There is obviously a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage, but both are considered marriage as long as the couple in question is an opposite-sex one, religion aside.

ETA better explanation

I do understand McCain hasn''t been crystal clear on his beliefs (he did say he''d support civil unions on Ellen''s show), but the bottom line is that his position isn''t relevant because he thinks it should be left to the states to decide, which is the constitutionally-just thing to do. To say that under a McCain administration gay couples wouldn''t have any rights is an errant statement.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 11/3/2008 4:24:10 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 11/3/2008 4:02:32 PM

Author: WishfulThinking

Date: 11/3/2008 12:20:42 PM

Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 11/3/2008 12:14:49 PM


Author: neatfreak


He is against gay marriage but is for gay couples having the same rights to benefits, children, etc. as heterosexual couples (i.e., civil unions, domestic partner benefits, whatever as long as it isn''t church sanctioned marriage which he believes should stay in the church and isn''t a state/federal issue).



It seems pretty clear to me...

I feel like I''m constantly quoting you, NeatFreak--sorry, you just tend to sum things up really well.



This seems pretty clear to me as well--in fact McCain has stated the same thing--that he is for civil unions and equal protection under the law (again, going back to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment), but not supportive of gay ''marriage'' either at a state or national level.

Just to clarify, McCain does not support domestic partner benefits or civil unions for same sex couples. I say that based on his many, many contradictory statements on the subject. He certainly doesn''t support EQUAL rights. Bottom line is this: if at all, McCain supports the type of legal contract that grants VERY few rights. He also would NEVER make it an agenda issue, so whether he would support it is a moot point in terms of policy. Under a McCain administration, gay couples wouldn''t have rights.


On the original topic, Obama''s position is as neatfreak succinctly put it. However, it''s sort of obvious that the logic component is missing in this position... last time I checked atheists could obtain a marriage license from the government. There is obviously a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage, but both are considered marriage as long as the couple in question is an opposite-sex one, religion aside.


ETA better explanation

I do understand McCain hasn''t been crystal clear on his beliefs (he did say he''d support civil unions on Ellen''s show), but the bottom line is that his position isn''t relevant because he thinks it should be left to the states to decide, which is the constitutionally-just thing to do. To say that under a McCain administration gay couples wouldn''t have any rights is an errant statement.

It''s not at all errant. McCain''s record on gay rights is atrocious in all areas, not just in terms of gay couples. His statement on Ellen''s show refers to a "civil union" agreement that would grant very few rights to same sex couples, and is hardly an alternative to marriage.

The bottom line is that leaving gay marriage decisions up to the states is antithetical to one of the most important aspects of democracy: freedom for the tyranny of the majority. It''s ridiculous to assert that allowing a majority vote on the fundamental rights of the minority rights is constitutional. If we''d operated in that manner for most of US history it would have looked VERY different...

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Okay, let's put aside the constitutionality argument because we clearly do not agree on that--I'm interested in the civil unions vs. marriage argument, though. From what I've read, civil unions offer the same protection as marriage, but at a state level. It sounds like you think McCain would support a different kind of civil union that would grant very few rights as opposed to the civil rights that some states currently offer? I know he didn't delve into this on the Ellen show, so I'm wondering where he outlined his plan for civil unions (aside from saying he'd leave it to the states, which again makes his role irrelevant). I'm not trying to be snarky at all, I'm genuinely interested.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 11/3/2008 5:00:19 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
Okay, let''s put aside the constitutionality argument because we clearly do not agree on that--I''m interested in the civil unions vs. marriage argument, though. From what I''ve read, civil unions offer the same protection as marriage, but at a state level. It sounds like you think McCain would support a different kind of civil union that would grant very few rights as opposed to the civil rights that some states currently offer? I know he didn''t delve into this on the Ellen show, so I''m wondering where he outlined his plan for civil unions (aside from saying he''d leave it to the states, which again makes his role irrelevant). I''m not trying to be snarky at all, I''m genuinely interested.

I agree that we''ll disagree on the constitutionality argument.

About the civil unions/domestic partnerships vs. marriage argument, I think really understanding the differences is key. I''m glad you''re interested because it''s something a lot of people haven''t taken the time to really examine. As it stands right now very few states offer any sort of protections to same sex couples. Of the ones which do, only one to my knowledge, New Jersey, offers the same state-recognized rights, responsibilities, and protections as marriages do. Some of them, including the ones offered in Vermont, New Hampshire, Oregon, and the District of Columbia, offer most of [but not all] the same state-recognized benefits. I believe there are a handful of other states that offer some small number of benefits to same sex couples, including Hawaii and Washington state.

In other words, not all of the "alternative unions" offered to same sex couples are the same, and not all of them offer equal rights, regardless of what those rights are being called. I would be a lot less frustrated with the situation if the rights were distributed equally no matter what they decided to call them [even though it would still be a violation of the equal protection clause: separate =/= equal]. However, this is not what is being proposed. McCain sometimes

says he supports "some" benefits for same sex couples. He can most accurately be said to support the lower tier benefits such as those offered in Hawaii; not on par with those given to heterosexual couples. This includes mainly the right of hospital visitation and next of kin status, both of which are obviously important, but are not the only things marriages grant. There are over a THOUSAND different rights and responsibilities that go along with a marriage license. He would offer 3 or 4 of them.

Keep in mind that McCain hasn''t at all outlined a plan for civil unions. He, as you noted, wants to leave this up to the states. I am basing my analysis of the situation on having followed very closely all of the statements made by both candidates on this subject, which I obviously feel passionately about. If McCain came out endorsing loudly even the smallest amount of rights for gay people his fan base would ditch him like the plague, so he obviously doesn''t talk about it very often. However, I do think the way I''ve characterized it here is fair.

I do think it is important to note something else about civil unions/domestic partnerships as well, and that is that they''re extremely clumsy. It is difficult for couples to invoke their rights within those unions because quite frankly our administrative systems are not organized to accommodate them. When we fill out forms our options are usually "married" or "single." If you have a domestic partnership or civil union you are neither, and writing that you are married on it can sometimes be a crime. It puts same sex couples in a difficult situation. The burden imposed on them as a result is, to many people, unacceptable.

There''s also the more obvious issue of the discrepancies between state and federal as well as interstate recognition of same sex unions, whatever they are called. I don''t think I could ever really explain to anyone who hasn''t experienced it how complicated and scary it is to try to deal with being in a union that is only partially recognized. Quite frankly it is a legal headache. Hell, I''m married and I don''t even know whether I can start a new health insurance plan under my parents. We live in MA, but does the insurance company recognize my CA marriage license? If so, I cannot be covered under my parents'' insurance, and would have to file for public assistance to pay for my healthcare. Do they consider me married or single in the MA healthcare system? Can my parents claim me as a dependent on their taxes? Well, they can''t on their state taxes, but can on their federal taxes... but will they get in trouble for fraud? Does this affect my student loans based on the FAFSA? When we''re flying cross country and we land in Minnesota where we are no longer recognized as married, what do we do if there is an emergency? The fact that we have an actual marriage license may or may not help us in these situations, but it''s preferable to having a civil union or domestic partnership. When people don''t understand the terms of your union, how are you supposed to function in everyday life?

And then there''s the linguistic idiocy: "civilly unioned" and "domestically partnered" just don''t sound that great. They''re also missing a SIGNIFICANT amount of social and cultural capital, which is its own can of worms.

I hope that helped at least a little bit and wasn''t too tangential. We find ourselves dealing with a lot of really difficult and potentially expensive legal issues at the moment, so it''s something that has been on my mind.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Hey, Wishful, sorry I didn't respond sooner. I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to lay the differences out, I really appreciate it. I completely agree that all people in a civil union or marriage should be protected equally under the law. This is where the constitutionality (for me) comes into play. If the state wants to recognize civil unions (the nomenclature means nothing to me--but because the term "marriage" is secular by nature I can understand if gay couples would prefer the term civil union), then it should be recognized as equal to marraige under the 14th amendment--as you stated, separate is not equal, so they must be recognized as one in the same. There is no reason a gay couple's rights should be any different than a straight couple's rights if that state decides to recognize same-sex unions.

Anyway, thank you again for the explanation!

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 11/4/2008 12:51:23 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
Hey, Wishful, sorry I didn''t respond sooner. I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to lay the differences out, I really appreciate it. I completely agree that all people in a civil union or marriage should be protected equally under the law. This is where the constitutionality (for me) comes into play. If the state wants to recognize civil unions (the nomenclature means nothing to me--but because the term ''marriage'' is secular by nature I can understand if gay couples would prefer the term civil union), then it should be recognized as equal to marraige under the 14th amendment--as you stated, separate is not equal, so they must be recognized as one in the same. There is no reason a gay couple''s rights should be any different than a straight couple''s rights if that state decides to recognize same-sex unions.


Anyway, thank you again for the explanation!

No problem! Thanks for the great discussion.

 

[princesss]

mini-threadjack:

WISHFUL! You''re being paged over in the Hangout