Come on, Democrats, you need to do better than that! The Civil Unions gambit is ridiculous. Marriage is not an invention of the Judeo-Christian religion or that deity - it has existed in many civilizations that were completely uncontaminated by the "god of Abraham." Equal protection under the law means equal, not separate but equal. It's marriage, and consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they choose, call it marriage, and enjoy all the same rights as everyone else.
I'm so tired of the sexual retardation of the Right Wing in this country. Are Americans ever going to outgrow adolescence? Are we ever going to stand up to the Yahwists and their sense of entitlement to control the behavior of others?
Viceroy
· 1 year ago
Smells like a McCain victory to me, remember 2004 and the Latino vote?
OlderAndWiser
· 1 year ago
State by state is going to be the way this will be achieved for the present. This case was based on the CA Constitution's equal protection clause, and was not a federal case. DOMA needs to be repealed and should be challenged in Federal court.
CA first approved marriage between blacks and whites in 1948, I believe. It took Loving vs. VA in 1962 before the SC to make it lawful in all states, based on the Federal Constitution, since Virginia's does not have an equal protection clause that covered it.
Keep chipping away. People should check their state constitutions and file similar cases.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
The dissenting opinion in the CA decision is pretty messed up, not unlike the NY majority decision:
1) interracial couples, unlike same-sex couples, had legit constitutional remedy because marriage was never "defined" as same-race 2) state has a compelling interest in violating equal protection because the definition of marriage is "traditional" 3) next thing you know the court will sanction incest 4) existing anti-marriage law did not discriminate, because any adult could get a civil union or a marriage.
that last one is revealing: it implies that marrying opposite sex is always a good alternative, even if you're gay.
this decision was a close call.
Rob Mule
· 1 year ago
Yeah, Johnny didn't "see" gays in his foolish and forced first term retrospective or even let us know if gas will be over $15 or $20 a gal when his imagined Bush 3rd term ends...
AdmNaismith
· 1 year ago
Really Obama? Separate but equal? You of all people should know better.
Hillary is about the same but still goes further on paper than he does.
McCain will avoid this issue like the plague because without moderates and indies he has no chance at all. Any intelligent conservative, there are some, does not care about the social issues one rat's ass...they are all about taxes. If the GOP trots out the fag bashing this time, it might backfire badly. The real wingnuts hate McCain anyway. BUT...if this thing somehow gets into a national spotlight...i.e. Supremes dealing with this law at federal level, it could bring out droves of bible thumping white trash who are bigots and hate blacks and everyone else. I am worried that the timing on this is gonna hurt us.
Catsandbeer.com
· 1 year ago
It just goes to show how much our politicians have to cower before the worst of our people that the 'progressive' democratic leaders can't even just say 'look, anyone should be allowed to marry anyone else' - the future generation that has only lived during a time in which gay marriage is legal will look back to now and wonder how we could in this day and age still discriminate so openly and in our laws against a subgroup of our citizenry - it's nuts that we have gone through the civil rights movement and eliminated systemic legal discrimination against so many other populations and allowed this one to persist
on second read, why the fuck would barack think states should be able to decide if gays can or can not marry? Does he also believe states should decide if people can/cannot have slaves or if women should be able to vote or or or or or ...?
I truly wonder if we'll ever wake up and say 'fuck it - we're not pandering to bigotry any longer'
Catsandbeer.com
· 1 year ago
alex, are you suggesting that non-gay marriage is natural? do you think that male squirrels and female squirrels exchange acorn rings and spend their honeymoons at the beach?
kevinbgoode
· 1 year ago
Oh, that's easy. McSame will say that the issue should be left up to the states, and that he disagrees with judicial activism (without mentioning that most of the California Supreme Court was appointed by Republicans). Then he'll come out in favor of the "peoples right to have a say" translation "the constitution was designed to amend in order to oppress citizens others don't like" you know, like passing a Constitutional amendment in California refusing to recognize Republican marriages cuz...after all...that's what the majority of people might want. . .
Rest assured, McSame will have that "activist" judge routine in his statement somewhere. . .
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
and the response to that is: 6 of the 7 justices on the CA court are republicans. they tried that crap in NJ and the answer was the same. in that case the chief justice was a republican and actually dissented because she wanted full equality, not civil unions.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 1 year ago
McCain: civil marriage between loving, committed gays and lesbians--bad. Marriage between straight, adulterous skanks who are former cheerleaders and craven POWs--good.
offspring
· 1 year ago
the only reason that gays do not have the rights of marriage is religon, so isnt that religous discrimination? I mean it is like asking the klan to pass black voting rights. Listen you have a large group of citizens that pay taxes that are citizens period of this country, who for some reason have to abide by the standards of a religous idealogy, one in which something that has no impact in their lives, such as gay people period and having control over their lives, it is like america is high school and the religous people are the jocks, always in power always picking on the weaker always bulling, and we are the nerds, it makes no logical sense none not one that the federal and state goverment can take gay tax dollars and not let them have the same legal standing in the law. as far as you get everything that marriage has in civil unions and so on, hey that is CRAP, you dont get some of the most important things, pension, goverment disabilty pension, the house unless you go through the extremely difficult separate but joint home buying, you cant file taxes together, you do not get alot of the retirement funds, I have been with the same man for 15 years i am 37 I have never been arrested and have served in the military and was wounded, my husband to me that is, and I where talking and it hit me If i die, since I have had two heart attacks already it is a strong likelyhood, but if die he gets nothing, but if a man joins the army and marrys a hooker and dies the next week she gets his pension, does that make any damn logical sense at all. The sick part, the most damning part is I sit here having to wait on the klan that loves the power it has over me to GIVE me the same right, give me. Religon has done more damage than it should have.
CardShark
· 1 year ago
I agree with Barack that glbt people deserve full civil unions but not the institution called "marriage". I don't consider Obama at all homophobic for opposing gay marriage. He has long been a part of the Christian faith community and he should be respected for those beliefs.
On the other hand, Billary's pandering is disgusting considering she pushed through both DOMA and DADT and was instrumental in creating a climate of hate during the 90's. I will never forgive her or her supporters for creating racist ads against Obama in which she darkened his skin and enlargened his nose to foment racial hatred.
TampaZeke
· 1 year ago
Sorry CardShark but Obama can't blame his position on his religion because he, like I, is a member of the United Church of Christ which in 2005 passed a resolution supporting FULL spiritual, cultural, social and legal marriage equality.
People who know Obama personally say that it's clear that his personal opinion and his political opinion on the subject are very different. He's even hinted at as much in recorded interviews. He says that we have to take what we can realistically win now (equal benefits and rights) and work our way toward full equality when the country is ready. I grudgingly agree with that.
Please don't assume that a political position is the necessarily the personal position of a politician. That would be a terribly foolish assumption to make.
tlsintx
· 1 year ago
melissa at shakesville says it well...underwhelming responses all around.
I thought Hillary was afraid to use the words "gay" and "lesbian"
lauracf
· 1 year ago
Obama can't blame his position on his religion because he, like I, is a member of the United Church of Christ which in 2005 passed a resolution supporting FULL spiritual, cultural, social and legal marriage equality.
True, but as any UCC member (I'm one also) knows, we're not like the Catholic church where all members are expected to agree with top-down pronouncements. The national synod speaks "to, but not for" local congregations. As for Obama's church, I don't believe it is formally designated as "open and affirming" (gay friendly), although I understand Rev. Wright has taken an inclusive attitude toward gays and lesbians. (And even within many UCC churches, you'll find a wide variety of opinions on many topics, including this one.)
I'm not saying Obama doesn't hold gay-friendly religious beliefs -- I'm just saying the denomination he belongs to doesn't necessarily prove anything one way or the other.
People who know Obama personally say that it's clear that his personal opinion and his political opinion on the subject are very different. He's even hinted at as much in recorded interviews.
This may be true. I think we all know that a democrat who openly advocated gay marriage would most likely not get elected (sad, but true).
But also, the bottom line is that Obama is right. Marriage is a state issue. The federal government does not issue marriage certificates. So realistically, the only thing a President can do to further the cause of gay marriage is what Obama has already promised to do -- oppose constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, support the federal recognition of same-sex marriages, and oppose laws like DOMA. (and appoint supreme court justices who are not right-wing idealogues!) True, in theory I suppose congress could pass a bill requiring all states to legalize gay marriage, which the President could then sign, but I think we can all pretty accurately estimate what the odds of that are! (And if under an Obama administration we got to a point in our society where both houses of congress actually did pass such a bill, well, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Obama would sign it, despite his current position.)
Anyway, great news out of California! Just wish our courts here in WA could have gotten it right...
Crazy4Obama
· 1 year ago
I'm tired of all the pathetic comments from folks who seem to be oblivious to the world as it exists. A dem can't win if they say nationalizing gay marriage is part of their agenda. Maybe you don't want a dem president, but I do. And learn to parse statements for Gods sake. Obama's for example first says he is for equal rights. He then says he will fight for civil unions. He doesn't claim civil unions are equal to marriage. He says he will fight for them. He then says he respects the Cal Supreme Court opinion. And he then says he believes states should make their own decisions on marriage because he knows that is the only place gay marriage can advance. It's a perfect statement. And I'm gay, and married (in Canada), so don't pretend I don't get whats at stake. I do.
TampaZeke
· 1 year ago
IowaMike, NO ONE in the Obama camp or in the Democratic Party or even in the Democratic grassroots has claimed that ANY Democratic candidate could or should run on a platform of NATIONALIZING gay marriage. I don't know how you pulled that little strawman out of your ass.
Can you point to a comment here where any DEMOCRAT has made such a claim?
Obama has said OVER AND OVER again that he is for giving gay and lesbian couples the SAME right, benefits and responsibilities as straight married couples but he (and Hillary) thinks that should be accomplished through civil unions.
He thinks that marriage should be an issue decided by the states. THAT is the same position held by Hillary AND MCCAIN.
So what exactly is your point here?
Additionally, you say that he knows that CA is the ONLY place where gay marriage can advance. Is that so? YOU may be stupid enough to believe such nonsense but I sincerely doubt that Obama is. HE, like most people know that same-sex marriage will soon advance in New Jersey, New York and Vermont and Connecticutt and other New England states will follow. You should really pick up a news paper once in a while.
Busboy
· 1 year ago
C'mon John A., the guy is over 70. He IS in a "same sex" marriage. Give him some slack....
Fuckers! This is not a 'States rights' issue. Nice to see them continue to showcase their bigotry. I am voting 'D' in November, but not because of their 'gay friendliness.'
May they have raging herpes outbreaks in their foul mouths.
Busboy
· 1 year ago
I'd say the shinola is pretty much in the rotor blades until November....
Busboy
· 1 year ago
O&W; ever put the flames out on that skirt?
Busboy
· 1 year ago
Hey, steve, the decision renders the inheritance tax obsolete. A dying single parent can marry their own offspring and exempt their fortune from confiscation. Think about it.....
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
it's too bad you're such an idiot. it masks your positive qualities.
Busboy
· 1 year ago
Mc Cain is staking out the high ground and Barack is defending himself on not being a Hitler enabler? Whoa!.....
All Comments
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/15/16185/5...
I'm so tired of the sexual retardation of the Right Wing in this country. Are Americans ever going to outgrow adolescence? Are we ever going to stand up to the Yahwists and their sense of entitlement to control the behavior of others?
CA first approved marriage between blacks and whites in 1948, I believe. It took Loving vs. VA in 1962 before the SC to make it lawful in all states, based on the Federal Constitution, since Virginia's does not have an equal protection clause that covered it.
Keep chipping away. People should check their state constitutions and file similar cases.
1) interracial couples, unlike same-sex couples, had legit constitutional remedy because marriage was never "defined" as same-race 2) state has a compelling interest in violating equal protection because the definition of marriage is "traditional" 3) next thing you know the court will sanction incest 4) existing anti-marriage law did not discriminate, because any adult could get a civil union or a marriage.
that last one is revealing: it implies that marrying opposite sex is always a good alternative, even if you're gay.
this decision was a close call.
Hillary is about the same but still goes further on paper than he does.
http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/20...
on second read, why the fuck would barack think states should be able to decide if gays can or can not marry? Does he also believe states should decide if people can/cannot have slaves or if women should be able to vote or or or or or ...?
I truly wonder if we'll ever wake up and say 'fuck it - we're not pandering to bigotry any longer'
Rest assured, McSame will have that "activist" judge routine in his statement somewhere. . .
On the other hand, Billary's pandering is disgusting considering she pushed through both DOMA and DADT and was instrumental in creating a climate of hate during the 90's. I will never forgive her or her supporters for creating racist ads against Obama in which she darkened his skin and enlargened his nose to foment racial hatred.
People who know Obama personally say that it's clear that his personal opinion and his political opinion on the subject are very different. He's even hinted at as much in recorded interviews. He says that we have to take what we can realistically win now (equal benefits and rights) and work our way toward full equality when the country is ready. I grudgingly agree with that.
Please don't assume that a political position is the necessarily the personal position of a politician. That would be a terribly foolish assumption to make.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/...
True, but as any UCC member (I'm one also) knows, we're not like the Catholic church where all members are expected to agree with top-down pronouncements. The national synod speaks "to, but not for" local congregations. As for Obama's church, I don't believe it is formally designated as "open and affirming" (gay friendly), although I understand Rev. Wright has taken an inclusive attitude toward gays and lesbians. (And even within many UCC churches, you'll find a wide variety of opinions on many topics, including this one.)
I'm not saying Obama doesn't hold gay-friendly religious beliefs -- I'm just saying the denomination he belongs to doesn't necessarily prove anything one way or the other.
People who know Obama personally say that it's clear that his personal opinion and his political opinion on the subject are very different. He's even hinted at as much in recorded interviews.
This may be true. I think we all know that a democrat who openly advocated gay marriage would most likely not get elected (sad, but true).
But also, the bottom line is that Obama is right. Marriage is a state issue. The federal government does not issue marriage certificates. So realistically, the only thing a President can do to further the cause of gay marriage is what Obama has already promised to do -- oppose constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, support the federal recognition of same-sex marriages, and oppose laws like DOMA. (and appoint supreme court justices who are not right-wing idealogues!) True, in theory I suppose congress could pass a bill requiring all states to legalize gay marriage, which the President could then sign, but I think we can all pretty accurately estimate what the odds of that are! (And if under an Obama administration we got to a point in our society where both houses of congress actually did pass such a bill, well, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Obama would sign it, despite his current position.)
Anyway, great news out of California! Just wish our courts here in WA could have gotten it right...
Can you point to a comment here where any DEMOCRAT has made such a claim?
Obama has said OVER AND OVER again that he is for giving gay and lesbian couples the SAME right, benefits and responsibilities as straight married couples but he (and Hillary) thinks that should be accomplished through civil unions.
He thinks that marriage should be an issue decided by the states. THAT is the same position held by Hillary AND MCCAIN.
So what exactly is your point here?
Additionally, you say that he knows that CA is the ONLY place where gay marriage can advance. Is that so? YOU may be stupid enough to believe such nonsense but I sincerely doubt that Obama is. HE, like most people know that same-sex marriage will soon advance in New Jersey, New York and Vermont and Connecticutt and other New England states will follow. You should really pick up a news paper once in a while.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/2...
May they have raging herpes outbreaks in their foul mouths.