Same-Sex Marriage Update

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Toughy

laughin............I'm just fucking with ya woman!!!....laughin..............I guess I didn't put enough of those smiley things in there cuz it was late when I posted.......


(Blame Canada!.....ya know the South Park movie about everything being the fault of Canada and we should invade and blow Canada open....)

Ah, there she is. Kept me up all night researching to find evidence of something that never existed! Why, I oughta....

I did get the South Park reference, I'm a fan of the show.

That'll teach me to take things at face value!

(You people are just jealous because Canada is so nifty.)

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by betenoire

(You people are just jealous because Canada is so nifty.)

Yes...cuz not only can you get married, but you also have Violet Crumble bars, which somehow YOU have and we don't, even though they're made in Australia. It's unfair. (sob)

I used to ask a Canadian friend to bring me some every time she visited, but with my memory I always callled them Lavender Smashies. Good thing she knew me well enough to understand.

[key]

I find it disappointing how very few politicians (especially our liberal "equal rights for all" politicians, and more especially our first minority President) have made public statements about this historic federal ruling.

Not that I think it will make a difference, but it might be a good time to call the Whitehouse and ask them to speak up. In case you care to, call the comment line at 202-456-1111.

All that negative stuff being said. Hoooooraaaaaaaay. I may actually be able to get married soon....................now to find someone to marry!

[MsTinkerbelly]

First Maggie Gallagher, now Debra Saunders: Another shocking display of ignorance in the San Francisco Chronicle
(The San Francisco Chronicle is on a roll, following Judge Walker’s historic ruling striking down Prop 8. On Thursday, they went full FOX News, publishing Maggie Gallagher’s Red Dawn op-ed warning of a “Soviet-style” government takeover of marriage. Not to be outdone, Debra Saunders also published a column in the Chron on Thursday revealing her failure to understand basic civics, as Brian Devine demonstrates below. Of course, that’s not very surprising coming from Gallagher and Saunders. What is surprising is why the Chronicle wastes so much ink on such ignorance. Just another “fair and balanced” #FAIL. — Eden James)

By Brian Devine

The San Francisco Chronicle’s conservative commentator, Debra J. Saunders, published a column about Judge Walker’s decision overturning Prop 8. Her article is a shocking display of a lack of understanding of the United States Constitution and the role of the independent Judicial branch in our system of government:

So one judge overturned a measure approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008 and upheld by the California Supreme Court in a 6-1 ruling.

Some Californians will see this decision as the work of an elitist gay judge imposing his preordained political views on voters.

And then she goes on to describe why she’s one of those “Some Californians.”

Debra Saunders must have been absent on the day her Civics class taught the most important case ever decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, so let’s take a walk back in time. In 1803, the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison. This case articulated the Judiciary’s power of “judicial review,” the power to decide the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government (a law passed by the Legislative branch or an action by the Executive branch.) Ever since then, every citizen’s rights have been protected by the Court’s power of judicial review. The reason judicial review exists is to protect the rights of unpopular minorities against what Alexis de Tocqueville described as the “tyranny of the majority.” In our system of government, the majority does not get to take away rights that are protected by the Constitution from a minority group, no matter how unpopular that group is.
Using the power of judicial review, our Courts have decided several controversial issues and have forced the majority to accept ideas with which it vehemently disagrees. Ideas like school integration. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that laws that created segregated schools violated the Equal Protection rights of racial minorities. Like Proposition 8, those laws were passed with a majority of people supporting them. And like Proposition 8, those laws were unconstitutional because they violated the rights of the minority.

Another idea popular among the majority was prohibiting inter-racial marriage. In the 1950′s and 1960s, most people believed that non-white people should be prohibited from marrying white people. Several states (including California) passed laws making interracial marriages illegal. These laws were very popular and passed with a majority of the people’s representatives. They were based on many of the same arguments on which Proposition 8 is based (fear of the slippery slope: absurd arguments like “if black people can marry white people, how long before people can marry dogs?”) But the laws were unconstitutional because they violated the rights of the minority. And in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional all laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage.

Our history is rich with cases where the Courts have overturned the will of the majority and protected the rights of the minority. In Debra Saunders’ ideal world, however, these cases would not exist. In Debra Saunders’ world, Brown v. Board of Education would have been decided the other way, leaving the dreadful Plessy v. Ferguson decision to be the law of the land and permitting racial segregation. In Debra Saunders’ world, Loving v. Virginia would have been decided the other way, and states would be free to prohibit inter-racial marriages.

Is this really the world in which Debra Saunders wants to live? As a straight, white, and relatively affluent person, it’s easy for Debra Saunders to say that she doesn’t need the Courts to protect her rights. But that’s exactly the point, isn’t it? The Courts are there to protect the rights of those who are least liked by society, not to blindly enforce the will of the majority.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by key

I find it disappointing how very few politicians (especially our liberal "equal rights for all" politicians, and more especially our first minority President) have made public statements about this historic federal ruling.

Not that I think it will make a difference, but it might be a good time to call the Whitehouse and ask them to speak up. In case you care to, call the comment line at 202-456-1111.

All that negative stuff being said. Hoooooraaaaaaaay. I may actually be able to get married soon....................now to find someone to marry!

Good luck with that!!

[Leader]

as only Jon Stewart / the Daly Show can...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...lifornigaytion

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by Leader

as only Jon Stewart / the Daly Show can...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...lifornigaytion

That was fantastic- LMAO

Colbert was hilarious too:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_673097.html

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

Good luck with that!!

Really! But the mid-terms are coming up. Dems arn't going to touch giving praise. The GOP is hot on the tax-cut trail and wanting to scare everyone about the deficit. Neither wants to deal with this now.

Obama has always stated he opposes same-sex marriage (he's a man and a woman only, rather Christian kinda guy) and has only spoken support for civil/domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians.

I kind of like the quiet. Feels more like this is starting to be viewed as a non-issue in many ways, as in [I]sort of normal[/I].

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

Obama has always stated he opposes same-sex marriage (he's a man and a woman only, rather Christian kinda guy) and has only spoken support for civil/domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians.

I kind of like the quiet. Feels more like this is starting to be viewed as a non-issue in many ways, as in [I]sort of normal[/I].

While Obama has not supported same sex marriage specifically, he is for some very fundamental protections with regard to property rights, federal benefits, etc. for same sex civil unions. It's not perfect, but it's a far cry better than we've seen before now. Maybe I'm settling, but I'd take it....

Here's a link to a good summary.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by JustJo

While Obama has not supported same sex marriage specifically, he is for some very fundamental protections with regard to property rights, federal benefits, etc. for same sex civil unions. It's not perfect, but it's a far cry better than we've seen before now. Maybe I'm settling, but I'd take it....

Here's a link to a good summary.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree because as I see it ( and as law will reflect), unless it is marriage, it will NOT be equal. It will always be some sort of "lesser than" law and will never cover the over 1000 rights we are denied because we can't get married.

It seems Obama tends to do a hella lot of backtracking and performing of half measures when it comes to the basic human rights that he was so very much in support of while campaigning. It's unfortunate that campaigns become more important than doing the right thing and taking care of business. Read : immigration reform which he promised to address within his first 90 days in office and now says basically he won't touch til after midterms. I don't single him out, as all politicians do this. They are merely mouthpieces for their party.

[theoddz]

I don't know if this has been posted or not yet:

On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement, which commented on same-sex marriage, prepared for delivery on the fortieth anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court.[12] The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows:

“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

It was kind of nice to read what this lovely Lady had to say about this issue, and to know that she is proud to have her own case quoted and associated with our cause.

~Theo~

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by theoddz

I don't know if this has been posted or not yet:

On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement, which commented on same-sex marriage, prepared for delivery on the fortieth anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court.[12] The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows:

“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

It was kind of nice to read what this lovely Lady had to say about this issue, and to know that she is proud to have her own case quoted and associated with our cause.

~Theo~

I think I shall print this out and make a t-shirt to wear when I am facing bigots who say that *our* quest for equal civil rights being compared to the civil rights movement is shameful.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

Really! But the mid-terms are coming up. Dems arn't going to touch giving praise. The GOP is hot on the tax-cut trail and wanting to scare everyone about the deficit. Neither wants to deal with this now.

Obama has always stated he opposes same-sex marriage (he's a man and a woman only, rather Christian kinda guy) and has only spoken support for civil/domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians.

I kind of like the quiet. Feels more like this is starting to be viewed as a non-issue in many ways, as in [I]sort of normal[/I].

That is just not true and I posted earlier (Post 317) about his unequivocal PUBLIC support for same sex marriage when he was running for Senator.

He, unfortunately, changed his position b/w his time as Senator and his Presidential run.

He also belonged, when living in Chicago, to the United Church of Christ which, in 2005, "became the first mainline Christian denomination to support same-sex marriage officially when its general synod passed a resolution on Monday affirming "equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/na.../05church.html

[UofMfan]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

That is just not true and I posted earlier (Post 317) about his unequivocal PUBILC support for same sex marriage when he was running for Senator.

He, unfortunately, changed his position b/w his time as Senator and his Presidential run.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_672836.html


Marcus@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting

Obama's Opposition To Gay Marriage: Genuine Or Political Calculation?

First Posted: 08- 6-10 04:45 PM


Yesterday's ruling overturning California's ban on gay marriage and the White House's mixed response revived a question that has long frustrated gay Americans -- why doesn't President Obama support gay marriage?

Soon after the decision by District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, the White House issued a statement condemning Proposition 8 as "divisive and discriminatory" without elaborating further. On Thursday morning, presidential advisor David Axelrod told MSNBC that "the president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control."

And certainly, the president has pushed through some major reforms benefitting gay couples such as extending hospital visitation rights for same-sex partners and he has asserted his intention to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He has long expressed his opposition to the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage act, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman and states that no states needs to treat as a marriage any same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. But his Department of Justice has defended DOMA in federal courts, arguing that it is appropriate and justified.

When Obama ran for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, he gave statements to a Chicago paper that expressed "unequivocal support for gay marriage."

But since then, and during his later emergence on the national political stage, four words have been missing from his often-stirring rhetoric: "I support gay marriage."

Obama even hinted at that possibility in a 2004 interview with Tracy Baim, the publisher of Chicago's largest chain of gay and lesbian publications. He told her that he opposed gay marriage, explaining:

I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example...


What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.

Some gay marriage proponents are skeptical that Obama personally opposes gay marriage.

"Every thing we know and admire about President Obama makes the claim that he doesn't support the freedom to marry very unconvincing," says Evan Wolfson, the director of the nonpartisan group, Freedom to Marry, adding that the president's public statements are more important than what's in his heart.

Wolfson says Obama is falling short of his promise because of his unwillingness to embrace what his professed support for equality requires, which he says is the equal right of gay couples to marry. Noting the president's opposition to DOMA, he asks: "If he's willing to be against 'against marriage', why can't he just be for marriage?"

Obama's deputy campaign manager during the 2008 race, Steve Hildebrand, who is openly gay, decried the tendency of prominent Democrats to support civil unions rather than gay marriage, calling it a "cop-out. Most politicians aren't going to have the courage to be that strong."

He especially decried the use of religion by Obama and others as a basis to explain their decision not to support gay marriage, blaming the media for not pursuing that line of questioning. "Where have you seen a reporter call him on that? He uses his religion to explain his views but he was a member of the United Church of Christ, which fully supports marriage for same-sex couples."

But in the end, the president's personal views (Hildebrand says Obama has "come close" to supporting gay marriage) don't matter as much as his public policy positions. And he takes issue with the administration's actions, pointing out that the president's public opposition to Prop 8 and DOMA clashes with his Justice Department's defense of DOMA in the courts. "I would love to see the president campaign vigorously against those discrimination attempts but I haven't seen it with any president yet."

Obama and other Democrats' position on the issue stands in contrast to other political figures who made the transition from gay marriage opponents to supporters.

Most prominently, Bill Clinton, who opposed DOMA when it was passed during his administration but opposed gay marriage, poignantly described in 2009 how he changed his position:

"I realized that I was over 60 years old. I grew up in a different time ... and I was hung up about it," Clinton said. "I decided I was wrong."

Of course, Clinton was long out of office at that point. Similarly, Laura Bush expressed her support for same-sex marriage this past March, over a year after her husband left office. And Cindy McCain joined the campaign to oppose Prop 8 a year after her husband lost the presidential election to Obama.

Certainly, it is possible that these conversions involve real changes of heart and not political calculation. Roberta Achtenberg, trustee of California State University who served on Obama's transition team, says that she is not of the opinion that all leaders expressing some equivocation about gay marriage are doing that out of political expedience."

She says that when President Obama says he opposes gay marriage, she takes him at his word. And she notes the real regional and generational differences on the issue, noting that while Congress is largely against gay marriage, most Democrats in California's legislature support it.

Those politicians who have taken a view on the issue out of political expedience may wind up regretting their decision, says Freedom to Marry's Wolfson: "If they are making a political calculation, it's a very costly one for them and the country because it's not appeasing any of their opponents and it's disappointing and impeding the strength of their base." He adds, "People may respect people they disagree with but not inauthenticity and pure political calculation -- that doesn't ring true... I don't think there's a single voter that Obama would lose because he openly embraced freedom to marry instead of everything but marriage."

The White House did not return a request for comment by the time of publication.

With his opposition to gay marriage and support for civil unions and just about every other aspect of civil rights for gay couples, Obama joins a long line of politicians including almost all of his 2008 Democratic primary competitors such Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Bill Richardson.

Their unwillingness to support gay marriage strikes some observers as an act of political calculation that may clash with their personal tolerance for such unions. The sense is that they fear their open support will rebound politically and inspire a backlash from conservative voters.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

That is just not true and I posted earlier (Post 317) about his unequivocal PUBLIC support for same sex marriage when he was running for Senator.
He, unfortunately, changed his position b/w his time as Senator and his Presidential run.He also belonged, when living in Chicago, to the United Church of Christ which, in 2005, "became the first mainline Christian denomination to support same-sex marriage officially when its general synod passed a resolution on Monday affirming "equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/na.../05church.html

I did not follow Obama all that much before his becoming a serious presidential candidate other than his Democratic convention sppeech that put him on the national map. And you are right, he changed his position. This makes me angry- as is pointed out time and time, again, politicians, including Obama will throw support for same-sex marriage down the tubes if it will hurt them politically. I am tired of this from politicians. I supported him for president and there are many things I appreciate about him. This is not one of them, nor, is his supporting having the military do studies to find out how to handle situations after DADT is finally done away with. As if gays/lesbians haven't been in the military for eons and just had to be quiet about it- what, just because thay can't get kicked out, they are going to have to have to sleep in dorms for gays when they no longer fear being outed? Use different bathrooms? All of a sudden, they are going to want to mess with all the straight military?

I have had a problem with Obama's feelings about the role of religion in state matters since getting to know more about him (again, began to take nmore notice of him as he became viable for the presidential election). But, in all fairness, I personally have a hard time with church being involved in state overall. It isn't just Obama. ht now, I wish that people that supported him would get out there and back mid-term candidates in the Democratic Party so that Obama could get a lot more done in his first term. I have a lot of respect for him. But, I don't agree with everything he does. I plan on supporting for him and working on the campaign for his re-election just as i did for his first term.

But, it makes me angry that he kicks same-sex marriage around based upon poll numbers. I'll certainly stand corrected for his prior support and going to a church that does not discriminate against the LGBTIQ community, but I hope our community and this issue is back on track for his re-election. can't see me voting GOP.... but... UGH!!!