-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I WILL NEVER COMPROMISE ON MY COMMITMENT TO EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL LGBT AMERICANS. As your President, I WILL USE THE BULLY PULPIT to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. Americans are YEARNING FOR LEADERSHIP that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, WE NEED LEADERSHIP that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. JOIN WITH ME, AND I WILL PROVIDE THAT LEADERSHIP. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike." -- Barack Obama (February 2008)
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
Well, I'm sorry, but Mr. Obama is all out of passes.
Seriously, would you have ever given Bush a break on ANYTHING by entertaining for a second that maybe it was some lower level functionary and Bush didn't know about it?
Wake up.
Ok... Look, I know it sounds like the LGBT community is pulling our best Veruka Salt imitation ("Daddy! I want civil rights Nooowww!") Yet it is very easy to say "oh just be patient", when you are not the one relegated to second class citizenship.
Like it or not, by the words he used during the campaign and by the promises he made, President Obama created very real expectations that he would be forceful advocate for equality. His campaign rhetoric on LGBT issues was deliberate. He wanted to create those expectations, it is why we supported him.
LGBT Americans didn't misunderstand what Barak Obama said. Barack Obama has simply chosen to forget his words.
Like thousands of other bi-national couples, my partner and I are separated by his immigration status. I can't sponsor him to come the US. (He lives in the UK) Thankfully the UK grants its citizens more civil rights than the US does, and we are in the process of getting my spousal visa to move there. We had held off doing this last year, in hopes that the President Obama would live up to the rhetoric of Candidate Obama.
Now I could marry and divorce and remarry any number of mail order brides from around the world, and Uncle Sam wouldn't so much as bat an eye in my direction. But to be able to sponsor a stable professional property owning highly educated and successful accountant from London who happens to male, somehow is just too much to ask for.
Now some of you are saying I should just sit down, shut up and tolerate being separated from my spouse for "a couple of years", because these things "take time. "
Sorry but no. My right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is not subject to anyone's socio-political sensibilities. To accept anything less is to say you are ok with The United States being a country where people are less free, discriminated against, and marginalized based sexual orientation.
It's this simple; Anyone so expresses support for DOMA in any form, has just said that Gay and Lesbian Americans are not real citizens of the United States, and should be marginalized as such.
So when I read nonsense like; "Same sex couples can daft contracts that give them the same rights as everybody else. We don't need to repeal DOMA", it's hard not to throw things at the computer. Same sex couples in the U.S. are anything BUT equal.
So unless President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party suddenly grow a spine and decide to keep all those wonderful promises about equality they made back in 2008, I am am stuck choosing between love or country.
After years of painful waiting in a long distance relationships, the choice for so many couples like us has been made very clear.
By filing this hideously offensive brief, The Obama Adminstration has just told LGBT Americans that we should never be anything other than a second class citizens.
But an advanced welcome to Britain anyway! <:)
To Obama (spends all his time on the blog): If you want to piss off the Cheney's there are other approaches. What about indicting the torture thirteen for crimes against humanity?
I mean, even a rat would treat their own offspring better.
Makes me wonder if GOd made a horrible mistake leaving the children in the hands of the Heterosexual.
So the banking and automobile industry gets bailouts, and we get hyperbole.
Lovely.
Thus negating the argument often made by the far right that, "gays have equal rights and can marry now -- they can marry any woman they want just like I can!"
Women tend to live longer then men, thus if I marry my BF and he gets my SS benefits for life he would get less then if I married a woman.
Women also tend to have higher health costs over their lifetime, assuming we remain monogamous and HIV negative in marriage, our benefit structure would cost less then if I married a woman and far less then if I included maternity coverage -- (one pregnancy in itself could pay for quite a bit of HIV medication for years and if there were complications may end up being more expensive then if we were both HIV+).
So, in essence my marrying a man could be cheaper to the government then if I married a woman.
The only way it would be cheaper is if I never married at all, man or woman.
Thus the, "scarce government resources," argument is nothing more then saying that gays should not get married to anyone ever!
Even if Obama expands gay rights in the future this one is a slap that should wake all gay people. The answer is less government not more -- let me live my life and keep the government out of it -- and until we stop acting as a blind monolith this is what we will get.
Second class tickets are for sale at all DNC and Obama campaign offices.
David
"Loving v. Virginia is not to the contrary. There the Supreme Court rejected a contention that the assertedly "equal application" of a statute prohibiting interracial marriage immunized the statute from strict scrutiny. 388 U.S. 1, 8, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967). The Court had little difficulty concluding that the statute, which applied only to "interracial marriages involving white persons," was "designed to maintain White Supremacy" and therefore unconstitutional. Id. at 11. No comparable purpose is present here, however, for DOMA does not seek in any way to advance the "supremacy" of men over women, or of women over men. Thus DOMA cannot be "traced to a . . . purpose" to discriminate against either men or women. "
How about HETEROSEXUALS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS, fool?
My thoughts go out to people in your country. For "freedom" and "equality" the U.S. is a joke. I hope it will join the civilized world soon. Or at least the 20th century, if not the 21st. If not, come to CANADA: I have been legally federally married for six years.
Our thoughts are with you: FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
A discussion on rights is subject to the vicissitudes of the federal budget? What a load of spreadable growth enabler.
While I (Hetero/Anglo/Texan/Republican) am frequently annoyed by the posturing of the likes of Gavin Newsome and those who would place their personal view above the law, I cannot support the unmitigated load contained in this brief. It reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
Keep the far ends of the bell curve at bay and place a centrist-worded "Privilege to Marry" initiative on the Texas ballot, and I'm sure that the LGBT community would be surprised at the support that it would receive from us ignorant rednecks. Even if it doesn't pass, at least (unlike The One) we'll say the same thing to your face that we'd say to your back.
PS: I don't want my niece to marry her girlfriend because the girlfriend is a snotty little b.. who will make my niece miserable, not because she's a she.
Jay
I am much more disgusted by the hyper-dishonesty embodied in several of the paragraphs you cite - where, in the course of declaring DOMA's 'caution' and 'neutrality,' the Obama administration selects 'traditional marriage' - which as the brief states already includes, in certain states, minors and first cousins - to receive federal benefits which may legitimately be denied to certain other otherwise valid marriages because certain other states aren't yet on board. 'Cause it'll save some dough. Also.
That's called 'neutrality.' Obversely, those sixteen year olds and kissin' cousins legitmately deserve federal benefits despite society's discomfort with sexual abuse of minors and children with almond eyes.
It's such a transparently shabby argument that I wish I could read it as an invitation to reject the whole brief. But I guess after almost six months of Hope and Change, we ought to know better now....
The argument the government needs to save money should be used to argue we shouldn't have to pay taxes to support opposite sex marriages and their many benefits.
In fact, a bigger sin to be a bigot, since it's directly caused more bloodshed.
Enjoy that.
*sips his martini*
It exactly agrees with my sense of the law.
Gays are the only minority group who have been completely left out of any conversation or teaching concerning the holocaust, and they, like the Jews and blacks were hunted, thrown in camps and slain.
Gays have been treated invisibly, as if they don't exist and up until the end of the 1950's were thrown into mental institutions and tortured because "gayness" was considered an illness instead of natural selection.
Gays are still lynched and put to death in most other countries, and though they may not have been dragged from Africa to be slaves in America, they have been (and are) dragged through city streets, crucified, stoned to death, persecuted and attacked verbally and physically by 90% of the population.
Gays are discredited by people like you who think that racial / gender comparisons is the issue instead of injustice.
So why don't YOU stop it.
Sure, "gays" are relatively invisible, but meanwhile the suicide rate for transgender youth is widely estimated at over 50%. That's right, OVER HALF of transgender youth attempt suicide. And meanwhile, most Americans don't know the difference between a transsexual and a drag queen, and have never even heard terms like genderqueer and gender-fluid.
There's a definite pecking order in the queer community, and it goes like this:
Masculine gay men
Feminine lesbian women
Feminine gay men
Masculine lesbian women
Bisexuals/pansexuals
Crossdressers/drag queens
Traditional, feminine male-to-female transsexuals
Female-to-male transsexuals
Kinky/alternative sexualities, BDSM and fetish
Genderqueer/andro/third-gendered/two-spirit etc.
Intersex/herm
My own perspective is probably skewed by being genderqueer/trans/intersex myself, but anyone who hasn't seen the pecking order in terms of visibility, rights campaigning and funding after spending any amount of time in the queer community has very serious blinders on.
And aren't the differences between men and women limited to genitalia? If you want to argue brain chemistry, you'd be surprised how limiting the gender binary actually is.
And you know what? Neither were you. Get off your cross. You can't get fired from a job for being black, but I can certainly get fired just for being gay--and that is just one example. Ponder that just a moment, why don't you? Do you really think gays don't face discrimination? Do you really think we do not deserve equal treatment under the law because we can't be identified just by skin color? Or is the ugly truth that we're a group you can freely discriminate against so you can feel like an equal with all the other bigots in our world?
And to borrow your language:
The differences between a GAY man and a STRAIGHT man are MINISCULE compared to the differences between men and women.
Peace.
I just want to be able to legally choose my next of kin and get the legal benefits that all long-term committed couples should have. Let's stop giving the religious right the ammunition they want by talking about marriage and let's even the playing field for all couples.
The fact is, marriage already IS the civil term, and is NOT a religious term. Homophobes try to hide that fact, and try to PRETEND that it is the "religious" term, but just watch the outcry if we try to take "holy state of matrimony" away from THEM!
Then sit back and laugh when gays and lesbians can still get married in addition to being legally joined, because lots of churches -- especially Unitarians -- will be happy to marry them.
For all you legal scholars out there, the Loving case did NOT redefine marriage. It affirmed it. It affirmed that marriage was between a man and a woman and not based on race. For those of you who think it was illegal for races to marry before Loving, think again. Hispanics and Caucasians could marry, the only exclusion was African Americans. So you weren't redefining a fundamental of marriage. You were affirming that you could not discriminate based on RACE. It had nothing whatsoever to do with redefining marriage since more than one race had the right to marry already.
Lord Almighty, I am getting so tired of having to clear this up every. single. time.
The government in its arguments above has trouble arguing that gay civil rights are somehow less important than black civil rights, in discussing Loving v. Virginia:
"The Court had little difficulty concluding that the statute, which applied only to 'interracial marriages involving white persons,' was 'designed to maintain White Supremacy' and therefore unconstitutional. Id. at 11. No comparable purpose is present here, however, for DOMA does not seek in any way to advance the 'supremacy' of men over women, or of women over men. Thus DOMA cannot be 'traced to a . . . purpose' to discriminate against either men or women."
But this argument is obviously disingenous. Of course DOMA doesn't advance the supremacy of one gender over another - it advances the supremacy of heterosexuals over homosexuals, and is therefore clearly discriminatory just as the laws against black and white miscegenation were.
As if Obama even read this thing before it was filed.
One of the main criticisms people had of W was that he ignored the law and sought too much Executive Privilege. So why should a Democratic Party President do the same?
The President has certain duties within the Constitution, above all ensuring it is protected. As for all the racist Clintonistas turning up to spam, where was Bill when he could have vetoed this?
Another obligation within the Constitution is protecting the right of States. DOMA does protect State rights, wrongly or rightly. And for all those running round saying Cheney is more progressive all he was saying is he agrees with DOMA, he argued gay marriage is a State issue. He did so after he left office, so his words were very carefully chosen for entirely Partisan purposes. Why did he not raise the issue of gay marriage when he was Vice President?
With regard to the brief that Queerty and America Blog so heavily objects to, it is the sworn duty of any Lawyer to put forward their best case. For those getting inflamed by the stories that suggest the deposition compares gay marriage to pedos and incest, it does not. The deposition recognises that States have different rules about who can marry (ie how closely related) and at what age. The case in question quoted was that of a 16 year old girl, hardly paedophilia or incest.
-- from: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues....
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Barack Obama:
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.
Says the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy needs to be repealed.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Where is Congress? Where are the Representatives? Once they are sorted, if President Obama vetoes any legislation to repeal DADT and DOMA, then I will have an issue.
Frankly, I remain very happy that I have a President I trust not to do that.
Those were Obama-appointed lawyers who went into court with this disgusting legal brief. If they had thought Obama really wanted to help gays have the right to marry, they would never have written such a vile brief.
And what are the chances they didn't clear this with Holder?
And what are the chances Holder didn't clear this with Axelrod?
What are the chances this brief was filed without regard to political consequences?
As Kanye West might say, Barack Obama doesn't care about gay people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSTv7Xao93I
But in terms of this issue I have a sort of conservative take which does not seem to have been mentioned: the family is the bedrock nucleus of social structure, conditioning, mores etc. simply because the family is the arrangement whereby children are produced biologically through natural means and then raised. Yes, homosexual couples can adopt or have a third party carry or seed a child for them etc. etc. but these are not simple, natural arrangements.
I have no problem with homosexuals choosing to live together because they find heterosexual intimacy unpleasant for whatever reason, but I don't see why there is anything wrong with a State saying that marriage is between a man and a woman and also encouraging societal differences between married couples and unmarried couples with all the distinctions that involves socially in both pleasant and unpleasant ways.
When push comes to shove this is about our culture, and culture IS about choice. We can choose uplifting, sophisticated, stupid, or wicked cultures but those are generalities; each culture develops its own detailed language, even a thoroughly criminal, degraded culture ends up having a quite precise tribal, communal or familial language, ways that certain things can and cannot be done. Ultimately, though, culture is something that we mutually develop and manifest and so ultimately it is a choice.
Personally, I think the issue here is NOT about homosexual marriage at all and you guys pushing it have a blind spot here. Ultimately it is about NORMAL, COMMITTED HETEROSEXUAL marriage which also is a cultural choice, NOT an easy thing to follow through on, and to which end over the millenia most civilised societies have encouraged marriage in order to provide discipline, sobriety, stability and consistency to the care and raising of children who are society's newest members.
So go off and have a great homosexual life. But if you live in a culture that wishes to emphasise marriage as an important element in how their society is structured, don't get so huffy about it. All gay people know very well that in pretty much any large city in the world anything goes. Sure, get proper civil union rights for insurance, hospital visitation etc, that is needed and right. But try a little harder to understand that conventional marriage is not an easy/automatic thing and many of the conventions in place to protect and honor it need to be respected. Something it seems to me you are not willing to do and which I think is both wrong and a tactical mistake.
Please listen closely:
Just like many straight people have simply never been interested and so never pursued it?
It's. the. same. thing.
Don't you think that every one of us goes through life with a multitude of relationships through our culture with people through which we learn about and try to understand what close, intimate relationships based on ones we seen honored throughout our lives just like everybody else?
Gay people have just as much 'understanding' of relationships as anyone else.
It's sad that too many of the people around most gay people often get tangled up in other things and tend to miss their humanity.
But hey, we've all done it, right?
So at least that's a start there.
Finally, are you trying to imply that having children is the only reason heterosexual couples marry? Because we are after all talking about marriage here. Realize very many people have children before or without being married and many married couples don't have children.
Lastly, what's this reference to pedophilia? Pedophilia is wrong and heinous because children are protected as they are not capable of making decisions about their sexuality yet in addition to being very succeptable to being taken advantage of. Our laws must certainly protect those who can't protect themselves.
Now, two grown men or women do have autonomy over their sexual and romantic selves. So there is no comparison to anything like pedophilia.
Put your money where your mouth is, you hypocrite.
Offensive: let this be a warning.
Site Monitor
Wh- Oh. Riiiight. XD
I also love my dog, but I'm not IN LOVE with him. You're implying that love only comes in one color, whereas we all claim to love our families even as your standards would dictate that if you love it, you marry it. You're like that bratty kid who likes to taunt with the old adage, "If you love it so much why don't you marry it!"
Stop acting like a moron and put your logic cap on for DOG'S SAKE!
The problem is not that DOMA is illegal or unconstitutional. The reality is that as the laws are currently written it is both legal AND constitutional. This is why legal challenges against it keep failing in the courts. Efforts need to be focused on changing the law through lobbying Congressional law-makers at a state (because it is a state responsibility to define marriage) and at the national level (because it is the federal government that decides how federal benefits are paid.)
This will be the key to achieving the goal. Certainly not through inflammatory name-calling. That only serves to undermine the position of the person doing the name-calling. How many of the rants and diatribes of your opposition have you simply ignored because of their vitriolic arguments? This community doesn't need to convince your hard-line opponents of the validity of your cause. You can't and you won't. Ever. You need to convince the middle ground people, those who have not already made a firm decision one way or the other. You will not reach them through rude behavior. They will just tune you out the same way they tune out your opponents who behave the same way.
One of the great things about our country is that no law can survive long in the face of the opposition of the people. You just need to get enough people. Reach out to the silent majority. Not with recriminations and accusations but with logic and understanding. Address their fears and their concerns. Listen to what they have to say and present your perspective in a way that they can understand and internalize. The dwindling of Social Security coffers is a very legitimate concern to many people. Particularly the elderly who are the largest voting population in the country. How will you address their concerns that granting federal benefits to same-sex couples will further marginalize what is already perceived as a shaky system? You can't just say this is/should be our right because right now it isn't and it never has been before in this country's history. You will have to convince people to make their elected officials change the laws to make it your right. Just like for all of the rhetoric the right of women to vote simply was not a right at all until it was written into law. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness were not inalienable rights until this nation made it so by writing it into law.
Use your brains and your hearts in conjunction. Figure out how to get Mom and Pop Middle-America on your side and watch how quickly the laws change. It's happened before and it can happen again. That was how DOMA got pushed through in the first place. The majority of those who voted for it in congress and the majority of their constituents who made their opinions known to their congressional representatives perceived it as a rational middle ground that they could defend to themselves. They weren't homophobes or extremists. They were simple everyday people with their own lives, their own fears, and their own aspirations. Those are the people to reach out to. Those are the people who will change the law.
I couldnt have put it better - i am straight too and i have gay friends too - who i wish would someday be able to marry and settle down in life.
But, this is going to be hard on the gay supporters of Obama - eventually, they will come around to realizing the futility of putting too much hope on one person or believing every election promise.
This is a matter that is in the hands of average every day people. They alone can lead the charge to repeal DOMA.
The tyranny of the majority in the South certainly wouldn't have provided Mr. and Mrs. Obama their marriage out of the "goodness of their hearts."
"The dwindling of Social Security coffers is a very legitimate concern to many people. Particularly the elderly who are the largest voting population in the country. How will you address their concerns that granting federal benefits to same-sex couples will further marginalize what is already perceived as a shaky system?"
"FURTHER MARGINALIZE?"
I tell ya what I have a problem with. I have a problem with the average middle aged man and woman who are so damned concerned about getting their ex-husband or ex-wife's social security from two marriages back yadda yadda yadda... without taking into consideration GAYS AND LESBIANS PAY INTO THE SYSTEM AS WELL. Those elderly folks didn't have a damned problem voting for George W. Bush in huge numbers so he could BLOW a TRILLION DOLLARS in Iraq, now did they?
Sorry, but you've come to the wrong place to try to get all Kum Bah Yah on us.
I'm glad you got your "friends of MANY homosexuals and bisexual" bona fides in there, bubba, or I would begin to think you were being rather smarmy in your "loving concern" and defense of this brief.
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness were not inalienable rights until this nation made it so by writing it into law."
Yea, well, I'm going to CASH IN my inalienable RIGHTS and demand THAT LAW be honored! Why don't we just tug on the heart strings of "Mom and Pop Middle America" to get them to discriminate against the rights of anyone who gets a divorce to ever get married again or to be cashing in on Social Security since its such a "dwindling resource that shouldn't be further marginalized?"
lovely timing.
As another who supports the right of gays to marry, I'm also convinced that the movement is pushing too hard, too fast. Yeah, yeah, I'm sure I'll be told that "we've waited too long as it is!" But changing laws and changing attitudes needs one thing - time.
It's often said that Roe v. Wade would've been less controversial if it had taken place in the 80's instead of the 70's. That's partially absurd, because the 80's attitudes were direct outgrowths of the decision. But the better point is that within a decade of the controversial decision, most people were able to accept it and move on; the minority of course who couldn't kept fighting, changing tactics, etc., but the decision has stood in spite of a majority of Republican presidents and a conservative majority on the SCOTUS since then.
These recent state rulings favoring gay marriage and others like Prop 8 banning it are just the beginning of the fight - not the culmination. It has to keep happening in more states, favoring, I mean. And THEN a challenge in the SCOTUS to set the precedent thereafter. Now is still too soon.
Many here may not like it, but Obama and Company get it. One step at a time. And then another after that. And DON'T skip any steps in between.
Patience, children, patience. It's the aggressively impatient who are harming the movement.
YES. Thank you; that was well put.
This isn't just some petty argument. Homosexuals just want EQUAL RIGHTS. They deserve equal rights. They've fought harder than any other group I can think of....maybe their fight has been different than the civil rights activism of the past. But, I cannot wait for the day that America is smart enough to give equal rights to all citizens.
This isn't an argument about what your religion believes or what your pastor would say. This is a fight for everyone to have equal rights to marry the one they love regardless of sex. This is a fight for their right to happiness. Isn't this what our country was founded on (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)?
Because, it is opening up Pandora’s box. Next, it will be three women who want to marry one man; or, four men whom all want to marry each other. Then the dad that wants to marry his son. Then they will start suing the churches for discrimination.
What’s wrong with a man that wants to marry his son? Incest is a Judeo-Christian construct, so don’t tell me that you believe it is wrong.
2) Four men marrying each other? Interesting. Still, even if they DID want to do it.. why would it bother you? How would it affect you? How would it impact your day to day life?
3) Dad marrying his son? That's a bit nutty, though you already have fathers borking their daughters.. i think they call that The South.
At any rate, many nations have had gay marriage for years now and none of this has come to pass.. but, even if it did, WHY WOULD YOU CARE? You're not the one with 3 wives, 3 husbands and your son all under one roof LOL
I smell a sitcom! :D
You're embarrassing yourself.
I am so sick of this argument. It really doesn't deserve a response except what I've given above.
Get to know some gay people fool.
The lack of understanding and sheer ignorance of some of the comments here is astounding!
Gay people don't want MORE rights, we want EQUAL rights! There are something like 1000 benefits associated with marriage from the federal and state governments. We want the same marriage rights because we pay the same taxes, and deserve the same benefits as everyone else. We don't want to be married in a bigoted church, or by your bigoted paster. Frankly, any religion that doesn't want us can go straight to their own ideological underworld! We aren't interested in forcing anyone to believe anything that they don't want to believe. We just want to have the same benefits and rights as everyone else. This should be obvious to anyone with half a pea-brain, but the willful lack of understanding and lies that have been spread about this subject is entirely due to fear and hatred by the bigoted few in this country. If just one man isn't free, then all men aren't free! Remember that next time YOU decide to take away MY rights! It may happen to you next, and there we are back in Nazi Germany, where incidentally they killed gays as well as Jews.
Thank You!
So in this case, this would be a basic principle of republican government.
It was the conservatives who thought that Obama would bring gay marriage to this country. It's why many conservatives that I know voted against him. Can't say enough how wrong they always seem to be.
Then after that correspondent dinner with the lesbian comedian, the threw her under the bus too.
Us GLBT ... he does not care.
Of all months, this on the 40TH ANNIVERSAY OF STONEWALL RIOTS President Obama decides to stick the knife deep on us. And he does not care.
Freaking unbelievable.
My heart aches. But it won't for long. It will be time to fight back and hard.
No More Mr. Nice Gay!
And by the way, dyke or not, she was way out of line with her comments about Limbaugh being a terrorist. I mean seriously, wth? I don't like that fat POS at all, but you can't say crap like that and not expect some kind of backlash.
Anyone who thinks there's a politician out there who wouldn't spit on gays to gain more votes/support/money is delusional. Anyone who "trusts" politicians of any party needs to look up at the ceiling to find the word "gullible" written up there. Just for the record, all politicians are scum at worst, and at best they have to let SOMEONE down because they can't get anywhere otherwise.
Sorry but thinking Obama is "The One" and was going to be your gay savior is ridiculous. Get over yourselves, the problems in this country are greater then any one group. Change is happening slowly, as it must, and if you don't think change for YOU is happening at all, well I would like to hear your thoughts on why the Po'dunk state of Iowa, which probably has more cows then gays, just made gay marriage legal.
But as typical for Americans, we want what we want and we want it right bloody now and to hell with what everyone else needs.
More "sit down, shut up, be quiet, wait" talk from people who have all their rights from birth. Up yours.
I don't give one shit about your problems, breeding stock, because someone long ago already did and that's why you're not barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen!
*spits at your feet* Pendeja!
Joel, I hate politicians and most of my post there was anti-politician. I love how Gridlock took the troll bait. Now that I'm laughing my ass off, allow me to answer YOUR post, which was well thought out.
I actually believe in legalizing gay marriage, but as with most issues, I don't believe in any politician, because their job security depends on lying through their golden smiles just to get votes. The problem with legalizing gay marriage is that right now it's still a hot enough topic in this country where politicians can't actually make it happen quickly without possibly losing their jobs.
Witness Prop8, which failed to be taken down for a NUMBER of reasons (including a shit campaign from the anti-prop8 folks). Prop8 primarily went through because Hispanics and blacks voted for it, because they had plenty of influence in their churches. Also, culturally, the gay lifestyle is not acceptable for either of these two. In order to enact change for the GLBT community, people must be educated, campaigns in favor of gays must be well run, and you HAVE to hit the younger crowd. Older folks, regardless of race, are going to be more resistant to the freedom of gays. It's the up-and-coming group of voters that need to be educated.
To expect the President (who not incidentally, won this election in large part because of blacks and hispanics, the SAME voters who then screwed gays in California--pun entirely intended) or any politician whose job depends on voters, to enact immediate change is preposterous. This is my point, Gridlock, you crazy fuck, about change having to come slowly. If a politician runs hellbent into this issue and demands change NOW, they are going to be standing beside you at the unemployment line pretty quickly. Sorry to inform you, but blacks and women didn't get rights from one day to the next. Ask the slaves, Dr. King, Rosa Parks, and all the bra-burning bitches in the 60s about it if you don't believe me. This crap takes time, and it takes careful steps. Hell, Lincoln frees blacks and gets his head blown off in a theater. If that doesn't tell you WHY change takes time, I don't know what else to tell you.
I don't agree with what Obama did with this particular issue, if it turns out to be truly as bad as this blog makes it same. I have my doubts, because anything I read on the internet is suspect, but this is CERTAINLY not the first time a politician has caused me to roll my eyes and shake my head in disappointment. I'm very cynical about politicians but I also understand why they can't make things happen overnight. To expect otherwise is setting yourself up to be a very very angry little person.
Gridlock, I changed my mind, I don't want to be barefoot and pregnant for you. Go screw a cow in Iowa, por favor. Gracias, papito.
*looks at Canada*
Funny. Seemed to happen pretty quickly there, and with minimal fuss.
Perhaps they're less backward and beholden to cavemen scribblings.
*rolls eyes*
That was sarcasm, by the way, because I happen to think Canada IS a lot more progressive then we are, and it's utterly ridiculous how stupid Americans can be. But that doesn't change the fact that things DO happen slowly here and to expect otherwise is to shower yourself in disappointment.
What the...?
How did you get British from a user name like "LatinaMama."
Anyyyyway, being British myself, it is past midnight and I should be in bed, but damn, this has just lit a (bloody) fire in me. And pissed me off pretty (bloody) badly. :\
1. Form a third party, of which one of its' basic tenats is the removal of "personhood" from corporate entities. This will allow a law to be enacted that prevents corporate donations to either office holders or candidates.
2. It is time for a Second American Revolution
Strawman! Red herring! Not all opposite sex unions are perfect. Lack of perfection does not negate an argument.
You wish is my command.
Well, partially. At the moment, the Huffington Post is just regurgitating AP wire copy.
-S
How is helping those foreclosed working out? Where's the urgency to introduce tough regulation to the financial sector?
And just in time for this year's gay pride marches and the 40th Anniversary of Stonewall. At least we know who we're dealing with in the White House. But why should we be surprised yet again that another politician took our money, energy and votes and turned on us?
All he had to do was decline to defend DOMA in court and he wouldn't even do that for us.
And here's my question. I keep hearing everyone saying that we have to make Obama do the right thing, but nobody has any idea of how. Because when I send my emails to Obama, he (or more likely his underling) replies saying how it's important to respect people with different opinions and how we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Well, what's the point? He's (or his people) aren't engaging in any dialogue on these issues. He has his opinion and it's not changing. So everyone keeps saying we have to force him to act, but if he's not open to actually listening to other sides on this, how are we to do this?
Hey if a man doesn't defend himself (as he didn't when McCain and Palin were attacking him personally), he surely won't defend YOU.
Assuming this is correct, than married gay couples in Iowa, NH, Conn, Mass, and so on should enjoy the same federal benefits. Their marriages are legal in their home states. To do otherwise is flat out discrimination. Frankly, it's a states' rights issue.
The arguments put forth are false. We've been stabbed in the back. Dick Cheney is on a higher moral ground than Obama on this issue. How ridiculous is that?!
I don't care how angry this statement makes anyone. Hillary Clinton would not have done this.
The pendulum has swung too far. While we had a petulant, soulless ideologue in the WH in the form George Bush, we now have a soulless, ueber-pragmatist in the WH in the form of Barack Obama. First, signing the equal pay bill to secure the women's vote. Next, a Hispanic female SCOTUS candidate to secure the Hispanic and female vote, announced on the SAME day as the California Prop 8 decision. Anyone else seeing a pattern?
he has done next to nothing for women and is still be lauded as a feminist. when sotomayor turns out to be an anti choice justice, it will be too late
I no longer believe a word he said in the campaign, or anything he says now. I will not vote for him in the next election. If Ron Paul isn't running, I won't vote at all.
His betrayal of progressives is shocking in its depth and breadth.
He says he's a fierce advocate...well, he can start being 'fierce' and stop the lawsuit before it becomes judicially encoded. He's adding another blockade. No change I can believe in, that's for sure.
How about snuffing out old people, they are a drain to the Social Security system.
Great, just great!!
We've got Obama on one side, equivocating and kissing-up to rightwing haters.
And on the other side we have...THE HATERS.
Where else is there to go?
Maybe I'm wrong, but, I think I smell
some Emmanuel here.
Am I wrong to feel that I deserve better than "better than nothing"?
I was duped again. It happened with Clinton. And it happened again. I was used as a political tool. I am just a vote. A number. Not a human being.
I should have known better right up front. But I made the mistake of allowing myself to feel hope. Not just for myself. Not just for gay people. But for the entire country.
There is no hope here. We live in a country where 80% of the population still believes in a ridiculous magic sky daddy and have their morality dictated to them by witch doctors who burn incense and interpret scripture. And Obama is one of them.
If I could afford it, I would emigrate. But I can't. So this is what I am stuck with: a society of god-fearing imbeciles warping our constitution into bible of ignorance and hatred.
I should have expected this. I should not have allowed myself to assume anything would change.
Hope is dead.
I won't be fooled again.
I'm very emotional and angry right now. Perhaps I'll look at the pragmatic side and political expediency and all of that.
But right now, reading that, I'm bitter as hell. And having this during Pride Month doesn't help.
Why don't you just say it, you don't like or agree with Obama then back it up with solid facts?
You know it is always much easier to burn things down than to build them up.
Face it, Barry lied to us in order to tap our bank accounts. He has no intention at all of doing anything positive for us.
He cares about us in the same manner that I care about Palin.
What difference does it make what Obama said on the campaign trail? That's not relevant one you win!
Want to save even more money? Let's stop federal recognition of all straight marriages that take place from this day forward.
MARRIED IS MARRIED
Hates Crime with sexual orientation may pass and the President may sign "and take credit" even though he did nothing to push it forward. A federal ENDA with sexual orientation - I'll believe it when I see it.
DADT - a pathetic joke. 69% of Amreicans and 58% of damn conservatives for god's sake are ready to let gays serve openly in the military (and probably a majority of the rank and file), but a few backward generals and I hear Secretary Gates would rather hold off. Once again Rahn Emmmaul has convinced the White House to not let it's domestic agenda get bogged down in a "1993 gays in the military" controversary in 2009.
Problem is 2009 is not 1993 as far as society is concerned.
Folks, GBLT are expendable in this White House. We are "their Uncle Tom".
So, no we know Obama feels that BOTH DOMA and DADT are constitutional.
I could understand defending the portion of DOMA that allows states to not recognize another states marriages. But, to say it is constitutional to deny federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married in a state where the state has legally defined same-sex and opposite sex marriage as EQUAL is totally indefensible. ESpecially when they are making the claim that the marriages are NOT equal even though the states say they are.
I can understand them defending the law, but they can't just make up shit to defend it.
And no, the govt is under no obligation to appeal a ruling. They could have just let the lower court ruling stand.
I'm not entirely sure the administration has a choice in whether or not they'll defend it. None of us like it, but it is a standing law. As far as I know the executive branch is required to defend existing federal laws regardless of whether the president agrees with them.
Remember how Bush "upheld" environmental
laws he opposed, etc etc etc?
I wish Obama would do the same.
But no.
yecch.
The rationale used for defense is despicable, utterly.
the LGBTQ have been kicked in the teeth with this one. There are several constitutional scholars (including the president's own professor) who've written very well reasoned opinions as to why DOMA is unconstitutional.
Nothing like a fierce advocate for equality. And this president is nothing like a fierce advocate for equality.
Last time I checked Obama was elected by a coalition of the young, AA, Latinos and women. I wasnt aware that 52% of the American population is Gay. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Keep it all your true colors are showing you basically USED the AA candidate to get your narrow agenda and then when he doesnt satisfy it in not 4 years not 1 year but six months he is referred to as a black ass.
Carol
Nice job!
This is why we lost, and if this kind of crap keeps up, this is why we will continue to lose. Just because you don't want to accept the truth and want to defend the racists won't change the underlying facts.
ONE.
UNO.
1.
If you want more examples of bigotry in the gay community, then look no further than your comment below.
Give me a fucking break. Nice right-wing talking point.
Wow.
Like I said before, this is why we lost on Prop 8, and as long as people like you continue to paint everyone who is religious as "rain dancers" and "chicken bone throwers", we will continue to lose.
you can't be bigoted against bigotry. One side is correct; the side that is resisting the oppression.
I use expressions of scorn in regards to religion to those who use it as a weapon.
Christ, nobody is actually that dim.
If you don't understand the definition, then maybe you should look it up.
The comments on this thread show just how bad the problem is. referring to President Obama as "his black ass" and calling religious people "chicken bone throwers" won't win us one more vote. In fact it will lose us votes. In opinion polls taken since Prop 8 passed, we have lost ground on the marriage issue.
If we don't respect people, then they aren't going to respect us.
This is why we lost, because you label everyone who voted against you a bigot, and people like the one I was replying to immediately reference race.
If you think the gay community is the least racist out there, you're just fooling yourself. The gay community has the same race problems the rest of the country has. I would suggest that you actually go out and ask people of color if they have ever been treated differently because of their race in the gay community, and you'll see what I mean.
and don't trot out that religiuous "they just voted for their beliefs" shit either. I couldn't give a rats ass what kind of 'get out of jail free' card people think the invisible sky fairy gives them.
When your rain dance, chicken bone throwing nonsense keeps other people from equality, that's when religion is being used to oppress.
There are plenty of people who voted for prop 8 who aren't bigots, and many of those same people could have been convinced to vote otherwise, but people like you are what keeps us from making any kind of progress with them.
If you don't have respect for other people and their beliefs, I don't see how you can expect them to have any respect for you.
Your comment is particularly ironic because someone above tried to make the case that there is less bigotry in the gay community than anywhere else, and you just proved that person wrong.
2) People using their religion as reason for said bigotry, and/or a shield to hide behind to forward their bigotry, are bigots.
3) Being intolerant of bigotry does not make you a bigot. You can't be a bigot against bigotry. That's fucking asinine.
4) Anybody who tries to oppress me, take my rights away, or relegate me to second class citizenship DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESPECT. They have effectively lost any I might have had for them.
Again, god is not a "i can do wtf i want and get away with it" card to be used as a weapon. That's not a belief. That's an excuse for pogrom.
Your argument is illogical, unfounded and patently idiotic.
OMG I HAD NO IDEA I WAS SO CLOSE MINDED
You're such a dumbfuck. Truly. The breadth of your inanity knows no bounds.
Take yourself away before to reap more laughs of scorn.
If you think that this is the kind of dialogue that will persuade people to vote with us, then you're sorely mistaken.
2) I dont want to persuade them. I want to destroy them.
2. The only way to overturn that vote is to PERSUADE voters to vote your way, "destroying" people doesn't equal votes. See the results of the Prop 8 vote for proof.
3. Numbering points doesn't make them anymore valid.
It's weird that the politicians are 10 times more homophobic than the population.
It looks like a bold face yyyyyy.
YOU WANTED OBO YOU GOT OBO. DEAL WITH IT! HE GOT YOUR MONEY AND NOW HE STABS GAY PEOPLE.
SUCKERS!
Ok, I'll pose a question ala Rachel Maddow: someone talk me down, please. Because I am seeing, even right now, us being thrown under the bus big time by this President and his adminstration.
But gosh, why should I bitch...we got a Pride Month Proclamation.
Unless you're thinking of another President we currently have.
Just sayin'
We deserve better. And don't assume I'm not willing to sit at home or throw away my vote on a third party candidate in 2012. I will be living in a swing state for the next 4-5 years, btw. My vote will count very much.
I agree with some of the other comments. Obama was pretty homophobic during the election, this should be no surprise. He's done nothing for us so far either. But you know what? He doesn't have to. Next election, we will still have to vote for him, to keep a Republican from office. He knows that. He knows he doesn't have to do a thing for us and we are still stuck with supporting him.
No we don't and I won't. If he acts like a Republican what's the difference?
I would greatly appreciate John and Joe and perhaps other experts laying it out for us point blank in a way that laypeople can understand.
Because IF in fact President Barack Obama is making a clear-cut, absolutely unmistakable choice in these cases to obstruct GLBT's path to marriage equality in this country (when he positively could freely choose otherwise), then we damn well need to know and face it now.
And if so, it should be widely known, proclaimed and confirmed as to what a political fraudster and charlatan this man is.
So, I'm guessing he shouldn't have any problem with this.
1 The executive branch does not create laws and although it has line item veto power (something frequently used by the Bush Admin) I believe Obama for the most part is reluctant to using this for a number of reasons but chiefly among them is that he would be seen as the same sort of power hungry executive trying to force his ideology on American and Congress as GW Bush.
2 I think Obama has always made it clear that in order for change to happen we all have to work our asses off to make our Congressmen and women listen to us. Whether that be with writing them weekly, visiting their office, forming a group to appeal to them it really differs on how to go about but at the end of the day, unless Congress backs new legislation anything coming from the executive branch will smell like a power grab or ideological policy.
3 Keep holding Obama's feet to the fire, please. This is our civic duty but please don't forget that real change is the sort enacted by the people for the people and of the people. And the people's body is congress. So hold their feet to the fire as well. More importantly we need to hold business accountable for their lobbying decisions, especially those that run against popular public sentiment. It is clear that most Americans are supportive of a nationalized healthcare, yet it is seems their is a well entrenched enemy against this option. Why? Business! This is why it is essential to look at the entire picture. As for DOMA, it should be repealed, I mean just look at the public polling on this issue, especially those in the 18-45 demographic and it is clear that the current is running against the anti-gay marriage crowd. However it would seem that a whole bunch of conservative white men (for the most part, yes their are some minorities in conservative circles as well as women but the group as a whole is white men) are holding up changing this legislation based on a small minority of people (sometimes their most influential political backers) or for their own moral reasons. Of course they forget that they themselves are a part of the demographic who has cultural attitudes who are going the way of the Dodo, so of course they are in for a fight.
But if you want to go ahead and blame Obama, feel free, I just think your looking at rather norrowly. I would say the same thing to a group of people who blame GW BUsh for everything not realizing that he had ample amounts of help along the way to ruining this nation.
Obama also made it clear that he would be our fierce advocate. And, he would use the bully pulpit of the preseidency on our behalkf.
Can you point to any evidence that he has done either of these yet?
This is interesting in light of the fact that poster after poster here blames "the Clintons" (only one of whom was President) for DOMA and DADT.
=======================================
Whether it is GW Bush, Congress, or Obama; what's the difference, our lives are still ruined because of this amicus.
I also, think Rahm Emmanuel and Obama have had their feelings hurt by us recently and this could also be a way of shutting us up. He needs to be protested everyday and perhaps, another march on Washington is appropriate since we really are second-class citizens if Obama thinks our discrimination is constitutional.
obama has never been comfortable with gay people or our issues. yes i'm glad he's in instead of a republican but i don't expect anything positively good for gay people as a result of this administration, just that he'll be less bad than any republican.
So many gays jumped on the Obama bandwagon, some because they were Clinton haters, some because they thought a black man would understand. As we now know, not only were gays duped, but so were a lot of Americans.
I am tired of waiting for my equal rights to acknowledged and I am tired of this administration being nothing better than Bush lite.
I will gladly do it again.
For any progressive candidate, with a proven Equality track record, who will challenge Barry for the Democratic nomination in 2012, that is.
Barry's pretty words about being our "fierce advocate" are not worth the breath it took to utter them.
No doubt you are right to think that since Obama came to office he has made moves that do not lend themselves to the opinion of Obama as a "fierce advocate" for the LGBT community.
Barry's silence on Equality issues is deafening, and his continued work against us is of great concern.
But me being "center-right", nope, you have that entirely wrong.
When, and if, Barry begins to defend us, stand up for us and speak loudly for full Equality for all of us, I will happily show him the then deserved respect.
Until then, not so much.
As far as your statement about equality issues, I guess what you really mean are those issue revolving around the LGBT community. Surely torture and equal protection of habeaus Corpus is an equality issue? Surely hiring many presidential appointees from diverse cultural backgrounds is a equality issue? Surely talking about the rights of Israel and a Palestinian state (Palestine) is about equality? Oh but as you say the President does not care about equality issues.
With a name like Ben Dover, I can see that you are to be taken seriously.
Where it applies to everyone else.
He's all for Equality. So long as some are more equal than others. Barry now has a proven track record on this.
Would it make you more comfortable if people were more specific and just held up signs that said "failure on gay equality" instead ofthe more general "failure". Would you stop complaining then?
The LGBT community is not made up of a single mindset, as evidence by the difference within the community about religious issues, economic issues and social issues. There are many different opinions. I agree that same-sex marriage should be treated equally as regular marriage. As long as they are treated the same in the eyes of the law, i could give a crap about what they call it, civil unions, same-sex marriage or whatever. Gay couples deserve the exact same treatment under the law as does a hetero couple.
Is that simple enough for you?
I am afraid that anyone who says they voted for Barry, does not seem to me to be someone who really supported Barack Obama. Do a quick google search and you will find endless right-wing blogs which call him Barry instead of Barack. Similar to the case of the GOP wanting to rename the Democratic party the Democrat party. It is an insult.
As far as the lack of respect in calling him "Barry"... Respect is a two-way street. Obama has shown no respect to the LGBT community either. His verbal comments related to the LGBT community have been to make a joke about our same-sex marriage victory in Iowa at the Corrspondents dinner. Then, to show concern over Prop 8 in CA, he made a joke about the protestors outside his CA fund raiser on the day the CA Supreme Court decision was announced.
Making the LGBT community the butt of jokes shows no respect from him. So, I have no problem with anyone who wants to call him Barry to show their lack of respect for him.
Obama is a liar and an opportunist - always has been. So - here you have your "cool" president -- the only change you can count on is his changing his mind on his campaign promises.
Just google it and see what you find, here is what I found,
"Sarah Palin is opposed to gay marriage. Alaska was one of the first states to pass a "Defense of Marriage" law, banning marriage between same-sex partners in 1988 and Palin supported it. Her campaign website for Governor in 2007 stated: I am pro-life and I believe that marriage should only be between and man and a woman."
So you are looking pretty ridiculous with your statement so far, let's see what else we have here on a search for 2 minutes....
"Sarah Palin not only supported the 1998 Alaska constitutional amendment banning marriage equality but, in her less than two years as Governor, even expressed the extreme position of supporting stripping away domestic partner benefits for state workers. When you can’t even support giving our community the rights to health insurance and pension benefits, it’s a frightening window into where she stands on equality."
Ok now you are looking like a real loon with your statement, maybe their is more to be uncovered,
I am not going to prove how ignorant and wrong your statement is, so if any additional readers would like to do some research here is a nice starting point,
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism...
The GOP never has and probably never will support any sort of progress on LGBT issues. They are a roadblock towards progress as I see it and will continue to be because the heart of the GOP is older, mostly hetero and white whihc basically means their made up of a group which fundamentally does not want to see LBGT issues treated equally with hetero-issues.
WTF has Obama done? He votes "present" --
Who cares about her veiws? At least I know where she stands. But when it comes down to doing what is constitutionally correct - she follows the law.
She doesn't flip flop around like a fish the way Obama does. I want to know where the politicians stand -- with Sarah I know.
What I really find condescending is how they repeat the bit about how there are other "loving" relationships, like siblings, that don't get people the rights married people have. Talk about relegating gay people's relationships to the back of the bus.
One last thing, a criticism of the people who brought this suit. This case will probably get knocked out because they lack standing. These couples should have tried to get federal benefits before bringing this suit. I'm really tired on people rushing to the courthouse with weak lawsuits. It doesn't do us any good.
"Oh there are other, more important things to deal with"
You go back in time and tell Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the fucking bus because everybody else will be late if she doesn't.
Arrogant, entitled dumb ass. When you give up all the rights you inherit by birthright and live your life persecuted, without legal recourse and unacknowledged in the courts, THEN you can tell us how we should be feeling according to your standard of "what's more important".
Until then, shut your trap. I'm fucking tired of listening to breeding cattle telling ME what I should be thinking.
And don't tell me what to think about - members of the gay community deal with every other issue that faces this country, including poverty and health care issues. This notion that we are not supposed to demand our constitutional rights and protections because of these other matters is an insult.
What gays need to do is to learn to take one for the team. They've been doing this for thousands of years -- can it be so hard to do it again?
They need to get comfortable with their assigned place under the bus so that Obama can do what he absolutely needs to do for the American people more largely speaking: provide them with compromised and deficient health care reform.
Mission Accomplished, President Obama!
Jesus X, it's been four months in Obama's presidency...lighten up! He will do what he said he intends to do, not with a damn band-aid but with concrete solution, at the federal level.
This concerns Federal law vs State law limitations, in other words, the role that the fed should play in the marriage debate. Obama has said repeatedly that the federal government has no constitutional right to address "marriage".
You need to direct most of your "outrage" at congress, Republican and Dem alike or your State legislatures. because they turn the wheels on this issue.
We're in the worse mess this country's seen since the Depression thanks to 8 LONG years of Bush and his mob.
All of this hysterical hyperbole and anger from you guys is disgusting and pathetic!
Barry's silence is deafening.
His actions speak much louder than his flowery words of "fierce" advocacy. From watered down policies on the WH website to his inadequate "proclamation" he continues to stand for what's wrong instead of what's right.
He campaigned on certain promises which have been 'changed', watered down or eliminated altogether. He's not even stood still, he's regressed on them.
If there was some forward movement on his part on ANY OF THEM, we wouldn't be having this conversation.. instead, he's moving backwards, hence why gays are pissed off.
You wouldn't be calling it hysterical hyperbole if you were consistently treated as an "institutionalized second class citizen" your entire life. Again, I volunteer in my community and I help out everywhere I can to diminish the pain and suffering my fellow Americans are experiencing because of the last eight years. I don't need any kind of lecture on WAITING for my civil rights.
We won't get ANY rights by patiently sitting in line waiting for 'our turn'. If we start a drumbeat, that is persistent and relentless and force them to experience the consequences of ignoring glb civil rights, only then (maybe) will we make any progress at all.
You'd hear cries of "Pedophilia parade!"
Don't you get it? They hate you no matter what, so there's no reason not to have fun in your own damn parade.
This post should be revised to at least attribute the document correctly to the DOJ's attorneys.
*sighs and rubs temples*
Mr Obama has been underhanded from day one of his political career starting in Illinois ... it's ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE -- mark it down and remember it. He's NOT a friend to the GLBT community nor is he a friend to the middle class.
It's 54 pages...READ IT.
This isn't about Obama, it's about the legality of the Federal government juristiction on this issue.
A lot of you obviously have a problem with Obama anyway so there's no way anyone can reason with you but the rest of you, please be objective and look at the document for what it is.
Jeez, you guys are as bad or as worse as the rightie wingnuts sometimes.
Second, this isn't about Obama? We informed the White House a month ago about all of this. The gay groups did as well. They knew these cases were coming. They approved of this language. This is not a surprise to them. I'm telling you this as a fact, not conjecture.
Peace
You've got to find a more constructive way to deal with your disappointment than telling me to wait to become a first class citizen.
1) Obama is staying hands off of this one publicly so that he can get health care through (which is, honestly, important to a lot of people, including teh gays...)
2) he is setting up the very real possibility of a Supreme Court challenge (something we've wanted for a long time) and taking the chance that it will all get struck down? This brief does take some real outrageous positions.
I'm upset about this too, but I'm trying to take the long view here.
Also, Obama can not be said to be "hands off" on gay issues. He is as of today very much "hands on", and not in a good way.
And this fixation on "Clintons gave us DOMA and DODT" is ignorant. Look up those fights and see who gave us these laws: Colin Powell, Sam Nunn, and other conservative Dems in Congress.
F U!!!!!!!
Obama is a fraud.
Presidents, congressmen, senators, gay orgs, religious right orgs.. wipe them all out.
That which does not work for us and/or actively opposes us and/or sells us out is to be construed as an enemy and destroyed.
No fucking mercy.
Wait until we get an appeals level brief in the GLAD or Olson/Boies lawsuit. That might actually represent the views of the higher ups.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
The Obama administration simply can't stop themselves from throwing gay citizens under the bus at every opportunity.
You've treated us to:
- Rick Warren at the inauguration; - Apparent support of don't ask don't tell (a nice about face from the campaign, by the way); - And now, a motion to dismiss a lawsuit (Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer v. United States of America, State of California, and Does 1 through 1,000) where the DOJ compares gay marriage to incest and child marriage, and further argues that it is appropriate for the federal government to treat gay people differently than straight people because it saves the government money. Pat Robertson and James Dobson could have written this motion if they had the legal education and acumen to do so.
I just wanted to personally thank the Obama administration for continuing the long respected Democratic party tradition of pandering to the LGBT community for fundraising and votes and then turning on us at nearly every opportunity.
Where's the change that I, as a gay man, can believe in? Looks like more of the same to me.
Here's my promise, and unlike some, I keep my promises:
I will not give a single dollar or single vote to any democratic candidate who hasn't meaningfully demonstrated through actions and not words that they support full equality for ALL citizens.
In case you're wondering, you're not making the cut right now. Are you going to do anything to change that?
My brother and sister are gay, each in a relationship for over 30 years.
Iver three decades with each of their partners -- and yet, my brother could lose his house if Larry dies early, my brother can't collect Social Security payments like any "married" couple of over thirty years.
DOMA affects his health care: if my brother loses his job, he can't be put on Larry's health insurance, despite the fact that they've been together 35 YEARS.
They can't adopt in their state, and a hundred other legal benefits of marriage, because you and your disgusting ilk are BIGOTS.
GO FUCK YOURSELF, BIGOT.
By the way, some people can't hide it like you say, they were born that way, it's obvious that they're gay.
I don't hide it, but 99% of the time, people don't know that I am a lesbian.
Till that point, shut the fuck up.
It's kind of hard to pass for straight when you aren't married and in your 50's. I suppose you could get married to a straight person and wreak emotional havoc on that person and whatever kids you may have produced and yourself. There are a lot of people who just can't simply put on a straight demeanor convincingly. Frankly, I've seen some very soft heterosexual men who can't pass for "straight". We've even tried to hook them up with gay friends to our embarrassment.
Seriously, get over your bigotted self.
As for "get over it", nobody is getting over anything. You know that.
At least with a Republican we know what to expect, it seems.
And do not expect the HRC to do a thing about this. Which doubles the feeling of betrayal.
Buyer's remorse, anyone? It's remarkable how otherwise bright people fell for the hope & change BS.
You've just named 2, although I call them "health denial" and "projecting your inner pussy". I'll add his stimulus as a third. Don't fret--the adults take over the congress in '10 and BHO becomes a first term lame duck.
I know - LETS PRESERVE SCARCE GOVERNMENT RESOURCES - and just dissolve ALL marriages! Again, why should gay families pay taxes? Someone please tell me why I should pay taxes so opposite sex families can benefit, but our families can not?
She never got past the first paragraph. That's our problem in the U.S. -- too many people can't READ.
Why the surprise?
Weren't you listening to Obama (and most of the rest of the African American community) during the campaign?
Didn't you hear the response from the African American community in California re: Meas 8?
One could easily point to the fact that Obama received less votes from Gay Americans than Kerry did as evidence that many Gays are bigots. Is that really where you want to go or do you want to stick to the legal merits of the case?
"Seems like a reasonable brief backed by precedent and fulfilling the normal presidential function of defending the Constitutionality of Federal statutes."
Funny that. You guys all on the Freeper LAN or what?
neok - North Eastern Oklahoma
The "star" means I'm a moderator on here.
As far as being "Republican" is concerned, I'm the vice chair of my counties Democratic Party.
Good grief...
One of the best long-term posters (along with many, many others) here at ABlog is cowboy.
Well, well, well. If the government can pass judgement on gay marriages, there is no reason why they won't soon be banning marriage for those with unpaid parking tickets. Oh that's a joke, but how about banning subsequent marriages for unpaid child support? Like that? Hows about banning marriage for felons, or anyone who was sentenced to over 12 mos. in jail? Oooh, here's a good one; ban marriages for anyone with a sex offender record!
Look, if you need statistics to support these things, I can supply them without a problem. Marriage is not doing so good these days, but if we ignore all the marriages which broke up due to anything else but the chosen factor, we could make a pretty good case. Mixed Jewish-Protestant marriages? Bound to go pffft! At great cost to the federal budget. Ban 'em.
I've got a little list,
of marriages we'll nix.
Those misbegotten unions,
which must end in a rift.
They never will be blessed,
They'll none of 'em be blessed.
Look, I'm just getting started, why don't you try a verse?
Here's where things get particularly absurd. Incarcerated felons already have a constitutionally protected right to get married. So - mass murdering serial child rapist on death row wants to get married? No problem, as long as it's not to another man (or woman, as the case may be, although rarely ever is).
PS - why is DISQUS being a pain in my ass?
Maybe it's finally occurred to you that, in ObamaWorld, his election was less about "hope 'n' change" than "It's all about the O."
===
All about the "O"!!!
Go with the "O"!!!
Mr Cool, the Big "O"!!!
Get "O"ver it, the election is "O"ver, you l"O"st, and "O"bama won.
L"O"L
Too bad. You broke it, you bought it.
While I'm all for marriage equality, the author of this post is quite disingenuous and clearly doesn't know anything about legal argumentation. Re. the incest comparison - The gov't was citing cases supporting the proposition that states have the prerogative, supported by caselaw, to not recognize marriages. When citing supporting caselaw, it is required that you include a paranthetical describing the holding or subject matter of the cited case.
Besides, were the authors of the brief to take the correct viewpoint-that denial of marriage equality is violative of equal protection-they would be asserting an argument that the Court, given its current composition, would never countenance. This would cost the attorneys much legitimacy in the eyes of legal observers, negatively impacting their ability to pursue progressive litigation down the line.
The case for marriage equality on the federal level can only be made after a couple nominations replacing conservative Justices. Until that date, any assertion made by the administration that denial of non-heterosexual marriage is an EPC violation would be grossly counterproductive, and would set back the gains made in individual states.
This brief is in no way homophobic, and the hyperbole engaged in by the author of this article borders on reckless. You are doing the LGBT community a grave disservice. Go to law school, or at least learn the first damn thing about equal protection jurisprudence, and then maybe you should consider writing posts such as this one. Though obviously then you would have to adopt a much more reasonable tenor.
HuffPo just dropped several pegs in my book by linking to this article. Marriage Equality will come, but complaining in a hyperbolic fashion about the best president we've had since LBJ won't do a damn thing about it.
Might want to give that a quick read-through.
And were it not for DOMA, as despicable as the legislation may be, we'd have had a shitstorm on our hands after the MA supremes granted marriage equality.
Every time someone comes on here to argue the actual legal brief you go back to your same invalid argument.
Of course with a screen name of Ben Dover, on this blog of all blogs might tell most commentators all they need to know.
Sacrificing the nuance of the law does nothing to advance the cause of marriage equality. We need to be lobbying the administration on things we can change NOW - a federal statute prohibiting orientation based discrimination, adoption rights, &c.
Let's face it-until we stop election shitty federal legislators, we're not going to have national recognition of gay marriage until two of the five current conservatives on the bench have been replaced. There's nothing that I, Obama, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster can do about it.
He did pledge to end DODT as soon as he got in to office, stirring up a bit of controversy and igniting much criticism. Can we please stop acting like Obama is an enemy of the nonheterosexual community, and instead focus on achieving those victories which can be realized?
Hey, I was alive in those years, and LBJ helped destroy the Democratic Party, and his own work on a Great Society by his stubborn refusal to end the Vietnam War.
I remember the chants "Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"
The Vietnam War also bankrupted the War on Poverty, the Space program and set this country on fire and divided the nation.
And left the door open for Nixon to lie that he would end the Vietnam War "with honor" and win the Presidency for Republicans to come.
Yeah, like we want Obama to follow in those footsteps, to screw enough of his Democratic base that the Republicans can lie their way back into office.
As for race/gender the next time we fight a civil war with 600,000 deaths and a martyr Republican President to mainstream homosexual behavior you'll have a better argument.
(over the top and BANNED)
You realy bad at being a progressive when dick cheney out-progresses you (he came out of the closet and or in support of gay marriage).
Your logic baffles me.
Oh, no. Not banned?!
Well that type of childishness wouldn't surprise me coming from your crowd. You all sound like a lynch mob. Keep whipping up the anger. Maybe you'll inspire another shooting.
The above article took great liberties with a case lawyers made. To suggest that Obama is connecting incest to gay people is to reveal your agenda is more about yourselves and your self-righteousness than understanding and calm, rational debate.
I'm shocked that anyone is shocked that The Chosen One has not kept his word - did any of you believe that at any time? O is all about O - period.
While everyone is screaming about the political parties - are you missing something? Hispanics in the majority voted to ban gay marriage. This is a group that liberals love to protect and advocate for. Face it, millions are here illegally, they live, drive, work, and look like any other citizen. Or are here from last amnesty or are 'anchor babies' grown up. Are you surprised that they voted? The politicians cater to them because they know they are overtaking this country and want to get their votes.
Change immigration laws and boot out the 12 million illegals and limit legal immigration and that takes away a LOT of the folks voting against gay marriage rights.
I'm not racist, I'm not anti-hispanic - I'm pro-American - I'm for legal immigration. These are not 'undocumented' people - to call them so is an insult to our intelligence - they are criminals. California is bursting at the seams with them. And you all are surprised that Prop 8 didn't go your way?
What law made them criminals? Uh, the US has immigration laws and sneaking over the border is illegal - gee, that's why ICE exists and they get deported. If it weren't illegal they could just saunter through border posts and say "I'm here for my free stuff". Unfortunately there are too many these days that we can't keep up with them. Try sneaking over the border into Saudi Arabia and see what non-wussy countries do with illegals. Tim - just like a liberal when faced with facts - resort to name-calling :) Those illegals can and do do many of the things reserved for CITIZENS. Thank goodness Maryland just finally passed a law closing the loophole that allowed illegals to get drivers licenses. Almost all of the illegals are engaging in identity theft - those were used to vote and there were many reports this election about voters not having to show any ID - tons of illegals (and dead people) voted for O.
Hispanics are, as a culture, deeply homophobic, but that's because machoism runs deep in our countries of origin. And a man taking it in the butt isn't a man, according to our history, and on top of that you got the Bible telling us it's wrong too. So you're talking about centuries upon centuries of culture and religion you have to defeat, even in those Hispanics that are now Americans. And frankly, you won't get the older Hispanics to change, it's the younger folks, the ones growing up around gays, that you need to reach.
As a Hispanic woman (with legally Americanized parents) who was BORN and RAISED in Miami, Florida (very heavy Hispanic influence there), I support the right of gays to get married. But I also know that it's an uphill battle with blacks and hispanics.
If you booted your 12 million illegals back to their poverty and disease-ridden hells known as countries, you'd still have lost the battle over Prop8 in California. Sorry to burst your racist bubble, but your post tells me clearly that you know nothing about Hispanics, their culture, and why they are anti-gay.
Because I'm against criminals - yes - illegal immigrants are CRIMINALS - I'm a racist? Really? If there were 12 million illegal Japanese here I'd say the same thing or 12 million illegal Brits or Norwegians. California just happens to have a large population of illegal Hispanics and not Japanese or Brits or Norwegians. It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with following the law. So convenient to toss out the 'racist' label when you can't argue your point logically. But don't let logic spoil a good rant.
The fact that YOU make it about race says more about you than it does me.
"If you booted your 12 million illegals back to their poverty and disease-ridden hells known as countries,"
sounds like excuses for illegal immigration. Uh, why don't these hard-working illegals work hard at fixing their own country then?
But you fail to see why they are coming here anyway, which is why I brought up their shitty countries, which incidentally, I have personally seen a number of. The situation really IS bad in those countries and they are desperate enough to cross deserts to get here.
Asking why impoverished folks have no power to fix their third-world shitholes is like asking why gays haven't forced our government to let them legally marry. It doesn't happen overnight, and when the tide is against you, there's not much you can do to fight it. Since you know nothing about Latin America, allow me to enlighten you. Central and South America is primarily heavily impoverished because their politicians are more corrupt then anything we got here in the States, so they skim off the top of the taxes over there. Furthermore, MANY politicians down there are paid by drug money to keep the status quo. And speaking of drug money, the drug gangs, drug cartels, etc, are the biggest reason there's so much misery. They are the ones who abduct dumbass American tourists for ransom. They are the ones paying politicians to STFU. They are the ones driving the poor people off their farms and out of their mud huts to pave the way for more drug growing plantations. They are the ones stealing 10 year old boys from their families, giving them 3 meals a day and a gun and telling them to start shooting. And they are the ones sending folks with bombs strapped to their chests into churches or news studios to blow shit up to make a point.
I'm sorry, you didn't know all this? Of course you didn't. America has her head so far up her ass, she doesn't notice what constitutes real suffering. The MSM never covers this shit. I mean if 9/11 was happening in America every 3 months, say, would YOU want to stay here? Knowing that your kids might be in school one day and get blown to bits by the local cartel? Knowing that you could be at work and someone could run with a gun and blow your head off for no good reason then because they were told to by the boss?
Of course not. You'd either leave, or you'd pick up a gun and fight back and get killed. Well some folks down in Central and South America fight back, but others run.
Now is this a good reason to allow illegal immigration to tax this country's resources? Of course not.
You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see illegals sent back to their countries, and I'd like to see the media reporting the atrocities that happen daily in their countries, and I'd like to see some moral outrage from Americans about the conditions in those countries, and I'd like to see maybe some offers of help from America for those countries. I mean we already like to police the world, tell Israel to play nice and invade Iraq and take over based on a lie and such. Why not extend those efforts to some actually humanitarian efforts for people who are genuinely suffering?
Just a thought.
You are wrong that this undercuts other attempts at the state level to have gay marriage recognized as law. These efforts have been far more successful at the state level than anyone could have predicted just a couple of years ago. And they have been successful because of arguments based on state constitutional provisions, not federal ones. In short, gay marriage is being recognized on a state by state level. And as those states that have recognized gay marriages by court decision or legislative enactment suffer none of the predicted ill effects, this fact will be used as an argument in favor of enactment of similar laws elsewhere. If the constitutionality of DOMA is upheld, it will not invalidate the state law within the state that enacts it or the right of any other state to give full faith and credit to gay marriages performed in other states should they so choose. Calm down. You haven't really lost. DOMA, after all, was a measure enacted to placate the Pat Robertsons of the country who were pressuring the GOP to enact a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. Had that effort succeeded you would have a far more serious hurdle to overcome and no state would have the option of allowing gay marriage even if it wanted to. I'd say on balance you guys are doing alright with the state by state approach. The demographics favor you. Younger people simply don't have the same problem with gays that their parents did. I have known young, born again, fundamentalist, don't believe in evolution types, who literally break with their parents on this one issue. And they do so because of exposure to gay people who have come out of the closet whom they respect and admire. What I am saying is that the actual affect of upholding DOMA in the long run will likely be as a bullwork against the forces who argue that gay marriage will be forced on them from on high by the federal government. If they start agitating for a Constitutional Amendment again to ban gay marriage arguing this is necessary to prevent it from being imposed on them, you can reply with one word, DOMA. And when they argue that recognition of gay marriage will lead to a slippery slope of legalizing marriage between people and sheep or whatever stupid argument they make, you can point to Iowa and say, "Well, that did not happen." Their public policy arguments against gay marriage will never have the same weight because you will have real life experience to contradict it. I actually think that this is where Obama is coming from. I believe he wants to ensure that the states are allowed to decide this issue for themselves for now and he may be right. And before you decide that you want to be considered as a "suspect class" for the purposes of Constitutional protection, keep in mind the resentment and charges of favoritism and reverse racism that that clearly justified status still has the power to evoke in certain elements in this country. I do not believe the president is betraying you. I think he is looking at the long haul and what is the best way to get there. Everyone has a part to play. Yours may be to not settle, but his is to maintain the forces of moderation while progress takes hold. They may be at odds currently on this issue but may come together again at a later time. The ultimate goal of each I believe is that same. Please do not put him on a par with Pat Robertson. That is so ridiculous I can't even find the words to express the ridiculousness of it. Fight the good fight as you have to but for the love of heaven, keep it in perspective.
this doma filing makes me ill.
Once you get beyond comparing everything to Bush, youi'll make tremendous progress in understanding. According to your analysis, this is worse than Bush.
will take our votes and our money but it's crystal clear as to their priorities be it torture or equality among other issues - "Change" apparently means "stay the course" in Newspeak.
The more we settle for "the lesser evil" on election day the more we enable the status quo and become Uncle Tom sell-outs ourselves.
Dick Cheney is more progressive than Obushma on this issue... 'nuff said...
If Malia or Sasha was gay Obama could be Alan Keyes at this point...
How odd.
I'm sure I'll still see those ridiculous Rainbow-Nation-for-Obama teeshirts around my town though.
(race baiting will NOT be tolerated)
I'm as gay as they come. I don't have the luxury of even choosing between men and women. I don't see women as anything but platonic friends.
It's not a choice, are you fucking kidding me? NOBODY GETS TO CHOOSE WHO THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO. It's as biologically ingrained in you as skin color.
That ridiculous argument is so 1983.
Sexual orientation is NOT something you wake up and decide to "do" because you decide you want society to treat you like a pariah.
If you think its a choice then maybe there is something you need to tell us. Are you living a lie? Are you one of us, and trying to be straight? My straight brother will be the FIRST ONE to tell you he never chose to like women. It just HAPPENED. Just like my orientation just HAPPENED.
I will say your chosen screenname is perfect for you, though. "simplethinker" really describes you perfectly.
Looks liek the joke is on you! You got egg on your face this time....oh wait, that's not egg.......loser.
Is that your understanding of the Constitution? Majority rules? I'm afraid your understanding of the Constitution doesn't run very deep.
2) Small group of people? 1 in 10 are gay, and that's the conservative estimate. That's about 35 MILLION PEOPLE alone in the US at the very least.
3) Minority rights ARE NOT TO BE DECIDED BY A MAJORITY VOTE. If that was the case, no minority would ever get any rights. Desegregation was opposed by 71% of the population at the time it was instituted.. i guess, by your logic, that should never have happened? READ A HISTORY BOOK.
4) How about YOU leave US alone. Stop standing in our way. Stop oppressing us. Stop keeping us from having our rights. That's all we want: OUR RIGHTS. We don't WANT YOU BOTHERING US. Stay the fuck out of our way and there won't be a problem, will there? What we do DOES NOT AFFECT YOU, so mind your own fucking business.
Assuming anyone would want to marry you & assuming your a U.S. citizen, married couples should all be afforded the SAME rights & be TAXED the SAME, but we're not.
For some unknown reason troglodytes like YOU, believe you're "more equal" than other U.S. citizens.
So why is that? Why do you deserve more than me???
(What people do in the bedroom isn't anyone's GD business is what you should have said.... you know... that whole 'freedom' thing terrorists like you apparently hate.)
I certainly don't want to know what u do in yours. You are the one who should be ashamed of yourself. How dare you tell anyone to be ashamed to want the same rights as you. You are not "all for Civil Rights". you are all for your own civil rights.
What diff does it make how many gay people there are?
You ARE a narrow minded HOMOPHOBIC person.
Gays are just as entitled to happiness as you are. If the government cannot offer the perks of marriage to gays they should not acknowledge marriage at all. let EVERYONE file for domestic partnership .
Remember, it's the knuckledragging wing of the Republican party that told you so first.
Thank God you don't get to make decisions, because Palin's a freaking moron and her being in the White House for any reason, even so much as scrubbing the toilets there, is a frightening thought. She and Todd are too STUPID to know when to STFU. Those two have the collective IQ of a box of rocks. Possibly two. We don't need another president with W's level of mental midgetry.
At least Palin HAS worked - gee she's been Governor for some time and held elected office before that. Do I think Palin was qualified to lead this country as President - nope. But she has actually worked.
Obama has never led a single gov't department or even in private business supervised or was the executive of anything. The CEO of my company has more experience leading people and a budget - and he's not qualified to be President either.
Other than a paid part time lecturer, his claim to fame was being a Congressman that didn't even vote on almost anything that came before him. He was a 'community organizer' - yeah right - he sat on a Board for about 4 months before bowing out. He wrote 2 books. Ok - Steven King writes books - should he be President?
Way better to have a narcissist and his band of thieves and tax-dodgers in the White House right?
Sorry but she shot herself in the foot during the campaign. Wise man say, better to stay silent and let others believe you are foolish, then to speak and remove all doubt.
She removed all doubt. I don't care what she's been elected for, she proved during the campaign she cannot be president. When media folks like Couric and Letterman can prove you're a moron, you are unfit to be near the White House. Palin will never be president. If she runs in 2012, all she's doing is giving Comedy Central better ratings. She has proven her foolishness time and time again. She failed to debate well against Biden, and my god, how hard is it to debate that goofball? She didn't know the issues, she has no sense of reality outside of her snowmobile, and she ran around insisting that small town America was the "REAL AMERICA."
What the hell does that even mean?
I'm sorry but the more educated, intelligent, and better speak won the presidency. I say again, can you imagine what the Middle East would think of us if she were president? You think they threw shoes at W? I'm pretty sure what they'd throw at her would be worse. She has no education and no tact for diplomacy, speaking, or politicking.
She needs to stay in Alaska. She has already proven herself nicely to be useless anywhere outside of her state.
Palin wasn't qualified to be President. Obama is not qualified to be President. Which of them had more leadership experience and work experience before they were candidates? Palin. That was what my post stated. But don't let fact get in the way of your rant ;)
Perhaps, instead, our debate should be more centered on what exactly qualifies ANYONE to be president of the US.
She's not qualified to be a Representative, let alone a Senator or President.
You're over-reaching in your quest have it codified into law as "marriage". Like it or not, some people believe that gay unions are wrong in the eyes of God. And like it or not, they have a RIGHT to those beliefs. Are their beliefs wrong-headed? Maybe so. I think so. But do they have a right to those beliefs? Absolutely. Without a doubt. That's something you're just going to have to accept. They have as much right to their beliefs as you to to be gay.
Do they have a right to prevent gays from enjoying the same rights straights do? Absolutely not. But the other side of that coin is, do gays have a right to deny people holding these beliefs the right to live within them? Again, absolutely not.
You're correct that this is a "rights" issue, but to a majority of the country, it's the rights of those who *oppose* gay unions that will be trampled on if DOMA is overturned. If gay "marriage" is codified as law, it's only a matter of time before a pastor, minister, or priest is hauled into court for refusing to marry two men in his church. He will be guilty of "descrimination". Members of that church will be forced to allow things to happen in that church that they feel are immoral or wrong. They will have lost their right to decide what they will allow and what they won't allow in their own freaking church.
Or take the couple that runs a B&B that allows weddings to be performed there. They happen to be Catholics and happen to think that gay marriage is wrong. So a gay couple shows up on their stoop and wants to book a wedding. They say, sorry, we don't do gay weddings. Next thing you know they're in court, for trampling on the couple's rights.
If you don't think that is what will happen then you're not being honest with yourselves.
On the other hand, call it a "civil union", and the priest/pastor/B&B owner has an out. "We don't do civil unions. We've never done civil unions. We've always done marriages, but not civil unions. Paster Dave over at First Lutheran does civil unions though, you might give him a call." That's not descrimination. That's choosing what services you offer and what you don't. It can't be construed as trampling on someone's basic human right to choose their partner freely and enjoy the same rights as everyone else.
Yes, there are people out there who don't want you to have the same rights as straights. Screw them. They're a minority. Most of us think you should have the same rights as everybody else. But we care about EVERYBODY'S rights -- not just yours. My daughter is gay, I love her dearly, and I will fight for her rights until my dying breath. But I voted in favor of Prop 8.
It isn't just homophobes, "haters", and religious fanatics who oppose gay marriage. But few of us who oppose gay marriage want to deny you your rights.
And what you're arguing for is called separate but equal, and it's unconstitutional. You say you love your daughter, but you're relegating her to second class status. I mean, your relationship with your daughter is your own business, but I would be pretty damn angry if one of my parents behaved this way.
Also, your concern that preachers will be hauled into court are misplaced. Churches are already allowed to discriminate in any way they wish. They dont' have to marry anybody they don't want.
Would you force yourself onto someone or some organization that viewed you as vile?
Stop allowing the right-wingers to use far-fetched arguments to play you, instead use you own sense of reason to figure things out.
You mean like in the U.S?
Is that definition, so very difficult to get through your head???
Thank the Universe, I live in Vermont, where ALL citizens are equal.
Yeah, I said it, I said the dirty "S" word.
Seriously, I live in Florida and I'd give a lot for these banjo-dueling fucks who run my state to be even 1/4th as progressive as the state of Vermont. *sigh*
Other more enlightened countries have laughed off this ridiculous, exclusionary and cliqueish nonsense about "protecting" the word "marriage."
Secondly, marriage IS NOT an exclusively religious word. Get over that. It has a dictionary definition.
Thirdly, NO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION ANYWHERE THERE ISW GAY MARRIAGE HAS BEEN FORCED TO DO A MARRIAGE CEREMONY THAT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THEIR DOCTRINE. That's a red herring, false argument.
Lastly, you sold your daughter out. If i were your child, i would never speak to you again and skip your funeral. You would earn nothing but enmity and a deep seated hatred for making me a second class citizen. Frankly, I hope that happens. You repulse me.
I am so glad I don't have a slimy parent like this one.
Isn't that last paragraph a bit hypocritical? You vilify the poster for not accepting his child for who she is. But his child should disdain and despise him for who he is? Parents are people too, with all their faults and flaws. Is the poster not entitled to unconditional love and support as the child is? We can't love people with different viewpoints, opinions, or deeply held convictions even if we're sure they are wrong? You expect him to do so towards his child, but expect the child to turn her back on him.
Oh right, cuz JEBUS said so.
If the rejection is "limited" to a child's right for marriage equality, that is neither loving nor just. A parent is entitled to "not approve of" the government recognizing same sex marriage but rejecting the power/right of a child to fully engage in her deepest relationship is not loving, where perhaps not approving the specific person a child chooses might well be motivated by loving concern. There is a big difference.
It is critically important to have a bright white line that identifies when parental "disapproval" crosses over into the clearly unacceptable.
While making that vivid distinction, I do agree with you that it is incumbent on children to do everything in their power to practice unconditional love and respect of their parents and not mirror their parents inadequacies at love. The unfortunate truth is that such lack of love from a parent significantly and deeply weakens the relationship despite even the most exceptional loving efforts of the child.
My behavior may be subject to evaluation. Neither my rights nor my being are. Period.
An opinion is one thing: using political force to actively strip the rights of a minority your child belongs to is.. well, revolting!
Let's put it another way:
How about if said person adopted a black child, and then voted against desegregation or voted against their right to vote.
Should the child remain meekly by, merely accepting it?
Funny how the argument always seems to be poo-poo'd when its gays involved. Like our oppression just isn't as bad or as hurtful, or relevant or important.
Do you want the right to be with your loved one in the hospitol, file a joint tax return and be covered on your spouses health insurance plan? Then you want a civil union (state recognized). If you just want to say "I'm married" then find a church that will perform the ceremony and call youreself married (church recognized). They can and should be completely seperate from each other.
You don't own the word.
Keep it up folks. Being nasty, vindictive, and hateful will always get you what you want.
I'm sure glad I raised my daughter better than your parents raised their kids.
Pathetic.
You cause our hate. If it wasn't for people like you, attacking us at every turn and oppressing us, we wouldn't have anything to bitch about.
All we want is our equal rights and to be left alone, sadly people like you aren't satisfied with that.
When you mind your own business and keep your face out of our affairs, we'll stop bitching.
See? Simple.
You people created us and now you're whining now that we're pissed off at the treatment you give us?
Incredible. Stupid too.
I'm not sure for whom to feel more pity -- you or your daughter. At least your daughter can be realistic about being burdened with a parent whose own fears, prejudices and selfishness prevent rational thinking. You, on the other hand, are cheating yourSELF from the fullness of the relationship you could possibly have with your daughter -- and your own pettiness prevents you from seeing it. That's very sad. How incredibly arrogant, smug and small you are.
How dare you have the gall to tell any other human being whom they can love or how they may NOT describe their commitment together. Frankly your "thinking" that we "should" have "the same rights as everybody else" may seem quite charitable to you, but none of us is interested in your, or anybody else's charity. (Actually, respectful discussion is the only thing that prevents me from suggesting what you can do with your charity.)
You may not think you are homophobic Craig, but you are. You may not think you are a religious fanatic Craig, but you are. And you may not think that you want to deny me my rights Craig, but you do. And you may think that all of us should just shut up and accept what you are "willing" to "give" us, Craig, but you are wrong.
I hope you can build on the apparent desire you have to truly be a caring, loving father and human being. Your daughter deserves nothing less.
"Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional... [Obama] chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent."
So in other words, he DIDN'T file the brief a Bush appointee would have, which would have made a legal argument about Congress's right to pass things it has a right to pass, but instead muddied the moral waters with all kinds of pandering. Seems to me you owe Bush appointees an apology for tarring them with Obama's crudely homophobic brush.
Each has been with their partner over 30 years. EACH, IN A LOVING, COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP FOR OVER 30 YEARS.
In that time, my sister has saved lives, my brother loyally served just two firms -- each working for the betterment of heterosexuals, who enjoy the priviledges of marriage.
My sister has probably saved the lives of bigots like you, my brother may have helped bigots like you to feed their families.
They've paid their taxes for over 30 years while being denied their civil rights, they've voted, they've served their communities.
You know who sounds like a four-year-old girl? You.
You know who sounds like responsible adults, despite being denied equal civil rights: my brother and sister.
I urged my brother to follow Obama's campaign, contribute and vote for him because Obama was the better candidate than McCain. (I had earlier supported Edwards because I felt he had a better platform on healthcare and poverty.)
I'd like my brother's campaign contribution back. I'd like a better option than Obama, if he's supporting the denial of my brother and sister's civil rights and comparing the family life of these two upstanding American citizens to pedophiles and incest.
What my brother and sister want and need is not a lollipop, it's the right to visit their partners of 30 years in the hospital, the right to adopt, the right to pass on their social security benefits so that their partners don't die in poverty, the right to share their health insurance with their partners, and a hundred other benefits of the right to marry.
You, sir, are a toad.
If you're the face of Obama's support, even he deserves better.
I know I made the CHOICE to not have those rights, a choice gays don't have in most places, I'm just saying that some of it can be handled other ways like I did.
PS - if you are counting on Social Security to keep your partner out of poverty, big surprise coming your way - and not a good one!
It's sad to consider that I have friends who got to join their spouses in the US because THEIR heterosexual relationships were consistent with the "traditional definition of marriage", but I can't do the same. It's sad to know that some of these friends considered immigration as a goal when they married, while I consider immigration as a means to finally marry the one I love. And it's sad that, because we're gay, the only options left to us by DOMA are illegal immigration (no thanks), praying for a miracle, or having HIM join me here instead, in an African, deeply christian-conservative country that's been just ruined by a months-long political crisis...
Screw taxes and all that, I just want to be allowed to live with my partner, as binational married heterosexual couples already do.
Long ago I used to read your blog avidly; then I stopped because of your unabashed bias for Obama over Hillary. This guy was so obviously promising everyone everything. How could you not see it?
Iraq? Are we out anytime soon?
Gitmo? Ditto.
Prop 8 + DADT? How's that working out for you? (Except in the State department)
Single payer health? Foggetaboutit !
Bail out's for bankers? Geithner = Paulson.
Hillary was, despite all press bias to the contrary, more honest.
Please next time do not be fooled by smooth talking man.
All the best,
Lore in Prague
What about hill's policies in the state department or hasn't that gotten through your spam/bias filter?
When women learn to support other women the way blacks stuck together in the 2008 primaries (90%) we will finally have a female president and one who will support gay rights. (we have certainly already had a male gay president but no help there).
Equality for all and no gutter sniping!!
Lore
-When women learn to support other women the way blacks stuck together in the 2008 primaries (90%) we will finally have a female president and one who will support gay rights.-
PS - Hildabeast is truly pathological - why you think O gave her a job that takes her out of the country most of the time lol.
I believe what Lore is suggesting is that women need to avoid the sexist bullshit and stick together in outrage against said sexist bullshit. Hillary was treated like SHIT during the campaign by the media. She was treated worse then Palin, and frankly as much as I hate that dumb Alaskan bitch, Palin was treated in a sexist manner as well. Women need to demand equality for our politicians, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on.
In other news, I don't think pathological means what you think it means. Anyone who is truly pathological wouldn't be SoS of this country. I don't know if you know what the SoS does or how much power that position has, but look it up, sweet cheeks. You might learn something. But if you don't, well then rest assured that you don't just assign any scrub off the street to that position. It's way too important.
PS Hillary is shining as SoS. Way better then that limp, flaccid yes-woman Condeleeza Rice.
I know what pathological is - do you? Hildy's disease is she's mentally unbalanced. It's not temporary, it's not situational, it's in her to stay!
Yes I know what SOS does. condescension is so unappealing - especially when done by someone like you who has no clue. Are you really trying to get anyone to believe that because someone holds high political office they are guaranteed to not have any mental defect? Or even be smart? Heck - Haig was the one that didn't even know the chain of command or who was in charge of the country when Reagan was shot. And O got elected. Nuff said.
Condi Rice is quite an educated and accomplished woman. You sound jealous. Not nice for someone who's in the sisterhood ;)
Boy howdy, how could we try the evil we didn't know instead of the evil we did know?
Silly us.
Men are so slow to admit they made a mistake but you calling BHO "evil you didn't know" is interesting.
Do you at least recognize Hillary's moves in the State department for benefits for same sex couples?
Lore
P.s. And the rest of you please don't believe everything you read in MSM.
In regards to the comments that it sounded like it was written by one of Bush's lawyers, it probably was. Most of the lawyers in the DOJ aer civil servants who do not just get fired when there is a regime change. So the author of the brief could very easily have been a Bush hire, it could even have been a Bush Sr. hire. Moreover, "W. Scott Simpson" just struck me as a mormony name. (Mormons are fond of using initials, it dates back to the polyg times when initials identified which of your fiathers wives was your mother.)
His westlaw directory entry didnt have any of his background info, but I did find that he published a comment in the BYU Law review in 1986. Which means he probably went to BYU law school, and was probably a Bush hire.
The Democratic Party hates gay people.
Human nature is egotistical - see the bigger picture please. What about healthcare or something that effects every single person, let's hope that he follows through with that.
I agree with Craig that overturning DOMA will only make others sacrifice their rights. Why would it be so bad for you to only be able to get Civil Union by certain priest/pastors/ministors/or other religious leaders? I, myself, can't just walk into any church and get married, I need to go to a church that I belong to. It's part of my religion - and even if I belong to the church, they have to approve the marriage beforehand. why should you have MORE rights, shouldn't it be the same? I am also against any type of predjudice and in fact in the last election I voted against Prop 8 - But I see this point very clearly.
The problem is that you're asking for the word "Marriage" and this is what makes a difference in most religious settings, it IS a religious sacrament afterall. And most religions do not favor same-sex marriage, that is just how it is. Why ask them to believe differently at this point? You can't, because they won't, and you will be forcing them to do something they don't want to do. It's sad that this is a fact, but it is. Fight for an official civil union and rights that go with that, and go to someone who is obviously gay-friendly when it comes to performing any type of union ceremony - wouldn't you want the person who is performing the ceremony to be whole-heartedly into it anyways?
No religious institution has been forced to perform a ceremony outside their doctrine where there is gay marriage. None ever will. Nobody is talking about going to a church that clearly despises them and trying to force a marriage ceremony out of them. Civil marriage versus religious marriage. Other civilized countries have civil marriage. I've been to about 5 gay marriages at city hall. It's not a civil union. It's marriage.
I'm not sitting in the back of the bus just because some asshole doesn't want me in their little club. Fuck whoever tries to stop me from sitting at the front.
Separate is not equal.
Marriage is NOT inherently religious.
Nobody goes around saying "Oh, this is my civil partner, we're civil unioned."
We're married. Deal with it.
I'm frankly sick unto death of hearing the religious whine about how legalizing same-sex marriage infringes on THEIR religious rights. What is that, the right not to be made to think about two men loving each other for life? The right not to have one's own hetero marriage put to shame by the devoted dykes down the street?
Nobody has the right not to be offended by public policy on behalf of their big imaginary friend in the sky. If G-d or whoever doesn't like gay marriage, PRODUCE HIM. Deposition him. Have him argue his own case in court. Otherwise, stfu.
Blatant racism has no place here. More of it and you lose your commenting privileges.
Pendeja indeed.
Now you can keep all YOUR money, and I'll keep ALL of mine!
There have always been limitations on marriage. To argue for gay marriage is to destroy marriage by definition.
Dumb.
That's "traditional" marriage.
The marriage as a partnership of equals is something invented in the 20th century.
If marriage is solely about the sex of its adherents, and can be threatened when that line shifts, it doesn't seem like a very meaningful or powerful institution to me.
In quite a few countries same sex marriage is a right. Sometime in the next decade or two it will be a right here as well, and many will miraculously learn that their marriage hasn't been destroyed.
Shocking, I know.
THEIR LIPS ARE MOVING AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY ARE MALE OR FEMALE, BLACK OR EVEN WHITE.
ALL POLITICIANS LIE
I mean, someone above said that homosexuals were killed by the Nazis along with the Jews. Does that mean that person was comparing being gay to being Jewish? Of course not.
If you can come up with a reason one state would not recognize another state's legal marriage that doesn't have something to do with age or familial relation, I'd like to hear it.
It seems that, perhaps, the outrage of this post will probably be tempered in the coming days by an increased understanding of the subtleties of this political maneuvering, and that maybe the best bet is to cool it for a minute, curb the outrage, and realize that there are other, bigger things going on on the same front.
It's not an accident that the same black ministers who aggressively try to deny us our rights at every turn are the same ones who fabricate "racism" charges at every turn, even when they don't exist a la the New Haven case....
It's their culture--and I personally am fed up with them and their culture. Do you honestly think that this country would be worse off if they were not part of it, considering not only this matter, but crime, poverty, and the like? And then there is Africa....and Jamaica.....the most homophobic hells on Earth.....
Sorry, but I have had it with the hypocrisy and their obnoxiousness--they obviously learned nothing from their historical experience except how to manipulate white liberals to get what they want out of them while they shit on everybody else......
This is not the place to vent your racist crap. Write more of it and you will lose commenting privileges.
TRY IT.
We'll make your hair look like SHIT.
You really want to face down 9 to your one? If you meant it figuratively speaking - you already are - and obviously not winning yet. If you meant it literally - in general, conservatives are anti-gay, and pro-gun - and have most of the weapons.
Why then were community property states able to get preferential tax treatment not allowed to non-community property states? There are probably other examples.
Look at the bright side, you're gay, so getting it up the arse isn't an entirely new experience for you.
"Spineless from the start, sucked into the part
circus comes to town, you play the lead clown
Please, please
spreading his disease, living by his story
Knees, knees
falling to your knees, suffer for his glory
You will"
And Slipknot (Wherein Lies Continue fittingly too)
"The endings the same, the world will not change, the answer is clear..."
wait, Obama's still a practicing lawyer?
wow.
who are you quoting? clearly it can't be me, since i didn't say that.
That say, I didn't trust Obama from the start. His campaign parlance reminded me too much of a young, handsome, used-to-have-a-hard-life priest in a rostrum.
To libel Obama (I am not one of his supporters, but I do know the law) is absurd, for the authors are the trial attorneys--not the current sitting President. Nor could Obama, by law, interfere with this nefariously pathetic document. The quotes attributed to Obama come from the trial lawyers, not the president and to misconstrue and misconstruct them constitutes slander which is a crime.
This article reads as if it were posted on some hate site. It has not one argument correctly assigned, which by default make the entire article a lie.
That is absolutely 100 percent false. Stop telling lies. Obama could have argued against DOMA, just like—as Americablog reported here—ALL FOUR of the last presidents did in certain cases where they believed the law to be unconstitutional.
I'm not gay and I didn't vote for Obama and I am completely for gay rights. Gay people aren't another species; we're all people who have the same feelings about the ones we love. It's just not right to put limitations on people.
I'm not anti gay rights. In fact, I very pro gay rights.
It's just that this whole debate shouldn't be happening. It breeches the divide between church and state. It's as simple as that. Many, many people see marriage as a function of the church - why is it being regulated by the government?
America is a small "d" democracy. Look it up.
I learned long ago, Politicians... Even the good ones are bad...
I'm disgusted by all of this.
Lets change it! Join Marriage Equality in your county, get involved and get the people around you involved. We can change this!
I'm sickened. When Cheney is more liberal (he's come out for gay marriage FFS!) than a democrat, we have a problem.
I am not homosexual, but I completely believe that none should have their rights or benefits removed because of physical location. I also may be misinterpreting the situation, but couldn't the states refuse to give state-sourced benefits while the federal government continue to give benefits as they did in the originating state?
fact: obama will only defend the civil rights of gay CITIZENS if he feels there is a political benefit (i.e. during a campaign). Otherwise, forget it.
There are no benefits or rights being taken away from gays that they did not have before they got married. The rights protected by DOMA are for straight couples so this lawsuit has properly destroyed that argument for the gay side.#
My advice fight for the same rights to apply to civil unions for gays.
See
Baker v. Nelson, Hernandez v. Robles
Are you saying that you can turn yourself from straight to gay, and back again, should you so choose?
I have to say,I am a little shocked at this report. I am,however not surprised at the Obama Administration. I am,however surprised at the gay community at their naive disbelief. I remember during the whole campaign,there were three candidates,two on the Democratic side,who believed in only civil unions. As shown here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3huRVrckY8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU9yZcpyvW8
Now,im also perplexed at everyone here who thought that voting for a black man would mean everyones rights granted after 6 mos in office. I also wonder why so many o you hate lip service,and yet,wanted President Obama to say something about rulings and California,Iowa etc. Did you all think you all voted for Gavin Newsome or something?
Did the President ever say when he would repeal DADT,DOMA etc? Did any groups representing you ask that question? No. Then why are you surprised that this is not going forward now?
Why do you think that people don't see this as an equivalent of the Civil Rights Movement? Since many died,were put in jail,marched everywhere to ensure our voices were heard. I mean,we just didn't organize marches and protests in California and New York.What about Alabama,Georgia,South Carolina,North Dakota? Why aren't any jail cells filled with proud people fighting for the right to marry.
Where are the protests in Washington? Where are they?
Washington sees the gay community as lazy and selfish. Im just tellin it like it is. Where are ya'll on the healthcare issue,and how some who are uninsured have AIDS and HIV,something that effects your community? Where were ya'll on the education reforms,that could help educate people about you? Where are you?
Where will you go,to a third party? HA!!!! Ok,he garners what 25% of the vote? Ralph Nader will be a powerplayer in the halls of congress like he is now.HEHE!! Stay home,Ok,let the Republicans get in or the conservative Democrats. To you,at least their honest about hating you and know as long as there in power,they won't give a FLYING SHIT ABOUT YOU!!!! Ok,shoot yourself in the foot because your angry,although I understand your anger,I do not understand your blatant stupidity.
Listen,Im not here defending the President,hell he is wrong here as he is on his gay marriage stances. The problem is,HE IS NOT GAY. Just like whites in the 1960s who supported integration,but still didn't know the plight of the blacks,President Barack Obama doesn't understand your plight. He doesn't. He is a politician. I knew that when I voted for him. Have we ever,not counting Washington and Eisenhower,not voted for a politician? Think about that?
I have always said to the gay community that they have to fight. Why,because,it shows that you want your rights. Sitting at home,expressing outrage is not going to help your cause. Getting mad and refusing to vote won't help your cause. You have nowhere to go,you need to make a way.
it would make everybody much happier to just eliminate marriage altogether
Fuck you, Mr. President.
Can each outrageous statement be addressed and argued legally somehow, stratregically? Is there not a Thurgood Marshall-caliber strategist who is up to the task of facing off with the genius of Obama? (Whom I voted for, btw.)
Just asking.
Not too mention that Obama has left himself open to be sued by the GBLTQ COmmunity as a whole for discrimination.
It is not Obama we need to fight but his administration as a whole and that is where his political and constitutional weaknesses are.
If your reply on the merits is that "we're not going to dignify it with a reply on the merits", that's usually a signal that there's something wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that the brief is basically correct.
If something is going to be changed, it needs to happen with the court of public opinion... because this is a fairly solid response.
People here need to get their heads out of their butts... and stop presuming that "outrage" is some sort of valid response to a lawsuit.
Bwa....hahahahahaha! Now SHUT UP and send your checks in to the HRC or the PDA or the democratic party front group of your choice.
He is Muslim and has defended the use of Islamic law in our country!
I am sure the IRS will treat everyone fairly??? Yea right.
Get your passport ready.
He just told the Saudi Crown prince to enforce the "Law" with Israel?
What does that mean?
I think we have been duped. Big time!
Clearly he does not want a single gay dollar or vote in the future. I will not donate another cent for the bastard.
Obama does not care about gay and lesbians. He offers NO HOPE. What a moral failure.
I mean no disrespect by this comment, but the equation remains the same no matter which variables you plug into it.
or rather: No U! all votes in our system are wasted!
sincerely,
-S
He really, really believes he can work us that easily, oh wait, he can and did.
Additionally, it should be understood that gays are NOT "minorities" as the term is defined for purposes of constitutional analysis. Minorities are those who have been historically disadvantaged and discriminated against on the basis of inherent natural and immutable characteristics. "Immutable" means "unable to be changed." So, characteristics such and skin color, race, gender and other genetic traits are the basic for categorizing a group as a "minority."
Homosexuality is not an "immutable" human trait. There is NO LEGITIMATE MEDICAL OR SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT for arguments to the contrary. You will find arguments in purported medical research articles to the contrary, but they were written by either gays themselves or gay sympathizers.
Homosexuality is a learned characteristic. In the nature vs. nurture debate, it definitely falls on the nurture side of the equation.
The Constitution does not afford special rights to pseudo-minority groups who choose the course of conduct and the "lifestyle" that is the basic for their claim of minority status.
It's just a bit funny for people to claim that homosexuality is unnatural. The Old Testament God was unnatural and we still have millions of people supplicating every day to that theological abstraction, while treating 3D human beings like an indentured servant. Perhaps The Fire Island Next Time?
++++
So where do people brought up by straight parents learn it from?
B. GENDER IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO SEX, SO DO NOT USE THE TWO INTERCHANGEABLY.
C. Your gratuitous use of AllCaps and incorrect usage of quotation marks does not help legitimate your already weak argument (or however one would refer to such drivel).
P.S. I am assuming that you are male because I am a chauvinistic pig; don't bother correcting me if I am wrong.
Why resort to these methods?
All who take the time to watch this/these;addendum to be watched secondly(doesn't have to be watched same time ) hopefully will have their eyes opened.PLEASE share this everyone.hopefully we can make a difference!!
AND ASSIDE FROM THE MOVIE,if any of you don't believe that there is homosexualaity;I don't care what you say,at some point there has been a time that you wondered sexually about it.
(IF JUST FOR A SECOND)Now some may not be hons't for fear of being thought gay or lesbian.BE HON'EST OR SOME MAY BE JUST TOOOOO HOMOPHOBIC...
What am I DOING.....
The idea of Cheney and Obama both agreeing on something should scare the cr*p out of us all.
Have gays ever had any role whatsoever in ANY socialist government? Ever?
There is no place for us in Obama's new world. We are just a waste of time and space, and this court document says as much. We "take" from social programs that he wants to use for other minorities - any other minority, including Muslims. They have preferred status but we don't?
Seriously, did you make the choice to be heterosexual?
Gays can make the choice to play heterosexual, as many did for decades, centuries, but playing straight does not make you straight.
Believe me when I tell you again, you simply do not know what you are talking about.
And, as for California, it was a slim margin loss. However, the 18,000 marriages that were held up will prove to the rest of the closed-minded population of California that same-sex marriage is not harmful. What we do in the bedroom does not affect your life at all. And people will soon realize that.
As long as the Democratic candidate knows you'll hold your nose and vote for him when it counts, your demands just don't matter. Until the LGBT community votes for a 3rd party candidate, or boycotts the election, en mass, you will remain powerless and ignored. They think you have no other choice. So ask yourself, do you?
BTW, are you over 18? If so, I wonder why you still call yourself Jimmy. By that age, most guys have changed to Jim or James. Is there some reason you're clinging to your childhood nickname? It's okay to open up about it here; we're listening, and we won't judge you, or punish you for your desires. You've probably had enough of that already, right? You're safe here. We understand you, and why you're lashing out.
On another note, I am so sick of you Homophobes saying "The next thing people are gonna ask for is to marry their dog, child, or sibling". You people really don't get it. Do some research, do some digging into the FACTS before opening your mouth and saying things that aren't even relevant to the issue, much less Fact. The majority of people who identify as "Homosexual" knew already at a very young age. Before they knew what sex was much less the word "Gay". I can verify this! The APA (American Psychological Association) can verify this, as they have a entire SECTION on their homepage dedicated to educating ignorant people, such as yourself, who make assumptions on an issue because they simply don't understand it. Some people don't understand quantum physics, but that doesn't that the concepts aren't FACT. You should educate yourselves and check out the professional opinions based on several studies, research and FACTS collected by people who specialize in the psychology of ALL people, including Gay people. . . It's beyond ignorance at this point. I can't imagine anyone CHOOSING to be scrutinized, judged, condemned, attacked and compared to pedophiles, called incestous or put in the same category as sickos that find sexual encounters with animals enticing. Its sick to even compare gay people to that. Why anyone would choose to be insulted to the very worse degree like that? You can try and justify it, but it simply doesn't add up. Its not a choice. It's not some "lifestyle". Heterosexual people don't just wake up one day and decide they must live some alternative lifestyle. I mean seriously. Everytime you people open your mouth with that nonsense, I promise that you look like an ignorant, nonsensible IDIOT and a bigot. No matter what race, religion, ethnicity or any walk of life you come from or been through. Your a bigot.
You're right about the vote. Stay home or vote for a committed 3rd party candidate. If there was a single-issue anti-DOMA candidate, and he or she got the overwhelming majority of the LGBT vote, the Dems would never dare to ignore the issue again. If you are a reliable Dem vote, you just don't matter. No more bluffing. Vote anti-DOMA, or stay home. Anything else means you're in the pocket.
I think the most humerous thing about this entire blog is the gay bashers don't realize that this could hit close to home one day. What will you do when your child or grandchild comes home and tells you they are gay? Are you going to bash them or love them? Oh wait, that will never happen to you right because you'll raise your kids better than that? I wish you the best of luck and congrats on making the "choice" to be a "normal" person that isn't insulted for loving the people you want to love.......
Furthermore, research studies confirm truths we've known for some time now; that nurture is just as important in the development of a child as nature is. In other words, sexual orientation can most certainly be influenced. Some new statistical revelations:
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_pr...
Children of homosexual couples are 4 to 10 times more likely to identify as non-heterosexual. But is this really surprising? Think about it. Hasn't our culture had a profound impact on how we define beauty in men and women? Don't women's advocacy groups routinely decry the depiction of unnaturally skinny girls in the media because it shapes societies views on attractiveness? This is an implicit admission that sexual attitudes CAN in fact be changed, at least in some cases, and not as "set in stone" as gay activists purport.
So long as the mind controls the body, anything is technically possible.
Yea, thats what your husband said until we found him handing out blowjobs in a public airport bathroom.
Ok, let me explain. It's gender normative to identify as "straight." So younger children and teens try to "fit in" and force themselves to be "straight." Even when they know, inside, they are not. As they become more comfortable with who they are, and realize that it is more painful to live a lie than to be "out," they start to identify as "gay" around some close trusted people, and eventually, come out to everyone.
"Children of homosexual couples..." - 1.) How does media portrayal of beauty change someone's sexuality? 2.) Maybe that is because they know their parents are more likely to accept them for who they are. Children of hetereo-couples always have that fear that they will be rejected by their parents. A fear, which, in my case, was true.
Thank you so much! I knew when I was 7 that I liked women. I didn't even know what sex was, but I knew that I would rather date women. I am now 21, and grew up in a house where I had to sneak around to see my girlfriend, and where every time Rosie O'donnel or Ellen Degeneres or any other LGBT celebrity came one television, my father would say hurtful bigotted comments. At the dinner table, if marriage equality was brought up, my dad always argued fervently against it.
I came out two months ago. He hasn't spoken to me since. I am not allowed to live at home over school breaks or holidays. My mother has dealt better with it, but refuses to talk to me about my love life.
I am just one of thousands of LGBT children who no longer have both parents loving support. I could be your child.
No one CHOOSES to be made fun of, discriminated against, hated, threatened or anything else that gays have to tolerate on a daily basis. They are born that way, just as you were born hetero.
As for the God sentence, doesn't your God love everyone? Doesn't he tell you not to judge? If you want to practice his laws, practice them all and learn tolerance-not ignorance. Otherwise, leave God out of it you hypocrite!
You're saying it's ok for Christians and the like to be provided protections from hate crimes (Religion is included), even tho' they CHOSE, as you said, to be a Christian?
They don't HAVE to be, now do they? They can be Muslim or Atheist or Jewish, and that's about the same, right? No need to protect christians too, correct? There's already other religions you can choose to be protected under!
Except for the fact that you are not Muslim, Atheist, or Jewish. And you wouldn't want to change, for fear of not getting into heaven, correct?
People don't choose to be gay. Why would they WANT to be teased, hurt, beaten, even killed for who they are?
Do you seriously even THINK about what you say? Have you ever even ENTERTAINED the thought that maybe, just maybe, you could be wrong? Do a little research? Maybe meet a gay person or two? See how their supposed 'choice' has affected them?
No, you didn't.
"Doesn't he tell you not to judge? If you want to practice his laws, practice them all and learn tolerance-not ignorance. Otherwise, leave God out of it you hypocrite!"
I mean, first s/he compares the alleged choice of sexual attraction to choosing to be Christian (which is a ludicrous acknowledgment since the latter choice is actually legally protected in this country). Then s/he goes on a tangent about gay celebrities and the "gay journalists" (LOL!) who write about them. wtf?
This person can't be real...
Find a more original line, for Christ's sake.
And two men *can* reproduce, just not with each other (though they will be able to in the next decade with genetic manipulation). Again, going by your screwy logic, two str8 people who are not able to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry, nor should post-menopause women.
Maybe you should get an education and know what you're talking about before you post on a public forum and show your incredible ignorance.
The so-called "ex-gay" movement is a joke. They don't check up on their successful "converts" for very long, because when they've done so it's always been an embarrassment. Even two of the founders of the largest such group, Exodus International now admit that the whole thing was a pipe dream.
You might as well argue that left-handers or people on the autistic spectrum are just making a choice.
But, if you choose to ignore that, fine. Just don't push your bible and it's "laws" on me. There is a freedom of, and freedom from religion. I invoke my right of freedom FROM your flavor of Christianity, the kind filled with hate and judgement.
It disgusts me how much contempt the average, uneducated American has for individual liberty. There are way too many of these smug, jealous, worthless voters who want the government to take away our personal freedom to marry which gender we choose, for example, and then also take away our freedom to spend our money how we wish. Talk about adding insult to injury.
"No, you can't marry that adult human being because I arbitrarily want him to have different genitalia than you. But I also want your tax dollars for a bunch of overly paternalistic welfare policies that you wont have access to!" What a fair-minded political philosophy.
You can proudly wear your populist politics on your sleeve all you want, but just know that they're no different than the Soviet communist politics of the Cold War era. That's pretty embarrassing for you.
Just because same-sex couples *choose* to marry doesn't make same-sex marriage wrong. Mixed-sex couples also marry willingly. Does that make heterosexual marriage wrong too? How is the "choice" of it even relevant here?
As far as "minority status" goes, a more accurate analogy here would be between those who wish to marry someone of their same sex and those who wish to marry someone of a different race. BOTH groups are making a choice in this regard, as there is no evidence proving a biologically based same-sex attraction or different-race attraction. But, following your logic, neither group deserves minority protection *because* these people are making a conscious choice to do something that they weren't born doing.
And Adam and Eve, huh? MoAr mythology pls!
Cause quite frankly it explains the absolute carelessness in this document, it has so much hate and homophobia in it, I don't even know where it begins and where it ends.
Henry: No?
Roy Cohn: No. Like all labels they tell you one thing, and one thing only: Where does an individual so identified fit into the food chain? In the pecking order? Not ideology or sexual taste, but something much simpler: clout. Not who I fu(k or who fu(ks me, but who will come to the phone when I call, who owes me favors. This is what a label refers to. Now to someone who does not understand this, a homosexual is what I am because I have sex with men, but really this is wrong. A homosexual is somebody who, in 15 years of trying, cannot get a piss-ant anti-discrimination bill through the city council. A homosexual is somebody who knows nobody and who nobody knows. Who has zero clout.
So, what is your point here? That Roy Cohn was right? If so, I give you HARVEY MILK as my example of why you are wrong.
Like that has never happened before.
Two Voices Blog Crazy
A presidency not even 6 months old, and we see he is as despicable as Bush, except the rhetoric is better.
So it will evidently take much longer than we thought for equality to be the law of the land, but know this: There has never been a civil rights movement that didn't win in the end.
There IS a war going on, however. The opponents are love vs. fear (hate is derived from fear). It is not a war of violence, it is a war of justice.
We know The Lord could not create a straight person and a gay person and not love them equally, not want them to have equal rights.
So let love be our sword and our shield, because love will always defeat hate in the end.
You're an idealist, that much is clear, but idealism simply doesn't work in a dirty, ugly, pragmatic world. This kind of idealism is dangerous - mostly for you. It's entirely out of touch with the realities of world we live in. In other words, utter naivete.
Besides, since when do we align our own morality in accorance with Saudi morals?
-When it doubt, ask yourself, "what would Suadi Arabia do?" WWSAD(tm)!
You're a fucking moron because Obama clearly didn't even write this; the DoJ did. Though both are equally worthless.
Well, let’s have a brief re-cap, shall we?
Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus strong-armed through congress!
Obama signed a $410 Billion Omnibus Spending Bill With Bipartisan Pork
Obama signed a $3.4 TRILLION budget, with NO Republican support!
But hey, lets focus on what's really important, the gay community.
God help us!
If I were a machiavellian politician, I might think it was done deliberately to get the right wingers to shut up about the TRILLIONS spent elsewhere with a, "See!!! Obama is saving money by keeping the gays down! Hooray for Obama!"
In a hypothetical time-line of reformation, it seems to me like this would be the first and easiest one to tackle and get positive results from. Maybe something similar or extending from the whole 'power of attorney' thing people exercise for others in similar situations?
Furthermore, research studies confirm truths we've known for some time now; that nurture is just as important in the development of a child as nature is. In other words, sexual orientation can most certainly be influenced. Some new statistical revelations:
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_pr...
Children of homosexual couples are 4 to 10 times more likely to identify as non-heterosexual. But is this really surprising? Think about it. Hasn't our culture had a profound impact on how we define beauty in men and women? Don't women's advocacy groups routinely decry the depiction of unnaturally skinny girls in the media because it shapes societies views on attractiveness? This is an implicit admission that sexual attitudes CAN in fact be changed, at least in some cases, and not as "set in stone" as gay activists purport.
So long as the mind controls the body, anything is technically possible.
Yea, thats what your husband said until we found him handing out blowjobs in a public airport bathroom.
Did you notice the B in LGBT? Besides, peoples claims of changing their sexual orientation might be as reliable as Newt's claim to be Catholic after two divorces, maybe, maybe not.
What ever happened to the idea that people could just simply be amorous by nature? That people may actually use sex not for 'special reservations', but for the sake of really connecting to another in the deepest form offered to us as human beings?
...
Oh, well. I have pipe dreams, anyway.
Our State and Federal Governments are separate, yet agreeable. Mostly. (See also: Medical Marijuana)
The Federal Government decides at some point what their definition of marriage is, mostly based on the historical integrity of the most popular definition to date. (This makes the Fed.G. the 'Black and White' factor.)
Based on public opinion, State Governments can legalize things that the Federal Government doesn't actually consider 'lawful'. (The 'Gray Area' factor...)
In the instance of the Federal Government and Marriage, they took it upon themselves some time ago to give certain 'perks' to those who legally bind themselves under their definition of marriage.
Unfortunately, when the State Government 'legalizes' something, it doesn't mean that the Federal Government has to recognize it for all it is if it conflicts with any laws/etc.. that are already in place within their borders. This especially means that if the State recognizes something that the Feds don't, the Feds also don't have to offer anything to anyone involved in said recognition.
This also means that the Federal Gov. can't completely intervene in certain State laws that have been put into place by the public.
(Or, at least, that's how it's supposed to go, I think~ XD)
Anyway, though I understand the unequivocal frustration gained by reading Obama's statements, you can't forget that at his core he's a Law-Man; and everything he said was crafted carefully to reflect his knowledge of the system and not necessarily his personal opinion on the matter.
It sucks that he was able to put all of this information so easily and eloquently so as to make you feel as though you're being victimized, because I don't think that was the point of it. All I see is a clear definition of a small part of the giant swamp we call a legal system. Unfortunately, the old usually trumps the new, and as we all know there are at least two fistfuls of doctrines within U.S. law so Old-School they should only be laughed at and thrown away at this point.
What NEEDS to change is the Federal law, because so long as the State can legalize Federally 'illegal' things, this kind of back-and-forth injustice will continue into the infinite.
What HAS TO CHANGE FIRST is public opinion as a whole before anything will happen at the top levels of our Liberty. We need more Homosexual people in public office, in the public Forum. We need to ensure that at the base of our individual states the basic rights and freedoms of all homosexuals are being preserved AND exercised just as freely as they should be.
President Obama hasn't necessarily put anyone back on this issue; he's just successfully withdrawn himself from the debate. I beg to guess that it's because he, himself, may be neutral and unwilling to stir feathers at this point in his administration.
Homeland Security > National Security > Restructuring a Dead Economy > Fixing a totally fucked Public Health System > ...Re-Defining an out-dated Federal definition of 'marriage'?
Your time will come, I know it will. Please don't give up hope.
What this particular statement by him proves is that he can define current law and explain how it effects the case and why. What it isn't is any definitive answer for whether or not he actually agrees with the unfair back-lash it has dealt.
He's not yet mentioned proposals about possible ways to unravel this steadily growing public issue, and considering the state of this country as of right now, I wouldn't count on any particularly stirring resolutions in the near future. (Well, that is unless some genius up on The Hill suddenly has an epiphany and writes up a binding resolution so aggressively appeasing to the Public that the entire country climaxes at the same time. =X {Heh; and perhaps that would, in turn, make everyone Bisexual in the process?})
Otherwise, until the Supreme Court gets its hands on a particularly new, juicy version of this issue (with lots of good backing and public out-cry in favor of-), I somehow don't envision him jogging so pointedly back to the podium to answer this one just yet.
That's it. Let's go back to.
To minimize blank space, one line break was removed from your previous comment.
There was the write in option... The Lessor of Two Evils defense is not really a good defense. Not choosing ANY of the candidates was a viable choice, although it was the most unpopular!
As to the better of two evils, how would we know? For that we need to examine the character of the individual. Remember, other very charismatic leaders have been chosen without a true examination of their character and WWII ensued. Or actually, people did examine their leaders character and found that they agreed that electing those leaders was better then allowing their countries deteriorate further. The lessor of two evils.
Remember, there are always consequences. Even if you choose the lessor of two evils, you still need to face the consequences.
and now he's turning his back on his voters.
i say, let him try to get his votes from the
Log Cabin Republicans next time around.
It's a sad day.
Seriously, I am for gay marriage. I am a republican and I think that government regulating marriage is stupid. It's discriminative and promotes a religious zealot influence in the government.
But leave it to Obama to support more laws attempting to tell people how to make personal decisions and how to live their own lives on matters that have no tangible affect on anyone else. And of course the populist masses will eat this up with a spoon. Hopefully this new face of the Democratic Party will soak up some of those bat-shit Christian Right voters that we haven't been able to get rid of...
Thanks. Very much appreciated. Frankly I'm only surprised that everyone it surprised. You may appreciate the essays at this cite http://open.salon.com/blog/john_mortimer_esq
http://ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?se...
The fact is that this is just not the right time for gay marriage. The majority is not ready for it. Most of them are still too tied up in homophobia and religious dogma to even consider opening their minds to the idea. I live in the South, and unfortunately, it is still extremely homophobic around here. If there was a federal decree for gay marriage, there would seriously be riots! I am not exaggerating. In the larger cities, it is acceptable to be openly gay, but in the more rural backwoods areas, it is still something that can evoke hate crimes at the very least (and no backwoods sheriff is going to report it that way if you know what I mean). I come from one of these rural areas, so I know this to be true. I moved to the city when I was a teenager and ended up making a lot of gay and lesbian friends. However, I still have family back home that would ridicule me just for associating with these people and bringing them around my kids. Seriously! If you live in California or New York or anywhere with a good sized gay population, you have no idea what's really going on in the world and how much hate is out there. I know people who want to overthrow the government because Barack Obama was elected. They would seriously do something stupid if he made Gay marriage federally legal. I seriously wish this were untrue! I wish my friends could get married. I wish it were easier for them to adopt children. I wish they could visit each other in the hospital. That breaks my heart because I know how much they love one another and I know how it would feel if I couldn't visit the most important person in my life while they were sick or dying.
However, most people (the rednecks and the religious...which makes up most people in the USA) don't see it that way. I think that generation x and beyond will change this, but until the old rednecks die, feel lucky if you live in a state where minds are open and people are allowed to have these rights. I'm sorry. I am not saying that it should be this way, but it is what it is. I really hate it, but it really is just that way. I'm sorry if my comment angers or hurts anyone, but seriously...I am just telling it like I see it and have it shoved down my throat every frigging time I visit my family! They get pissed off if Will and Grace is on the TV when they are flipping channels! I gave up trying to argue with them because they have a black and white authoritarian view. The authority is the unquestionable God. But I am working on them a little bit at a time...pointing things out when they make sense. Asking them what Jesus would do. What Jesus would say about their hatred.
That's what we all have to do. Work and whittle them down. We can't demand things and expect them to understand why they should just give them to us. They are too willfully ignorant for that. We have to show them the truth. Let them see that the reality is that there is no threat to them if gays get married. I don't know wtf they think the threat is, but it is very real to them...just as real as your right to get married is to you. I have heard people say things like that God is going to damn our country like he did Sodom and Gomorrah. They really believe that God will take his supposed blessing away from this country if gay people are allowed to get married. Try to understand and work with that and you might get somewhere.
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 So is rape game according to your God? Only 50 pieces of silver?
Deuteronomy 13:13-19 for example says that "god" commands you to burn down a town of non-believers and kill everyone inside as it is his will... right. .....
Ooo, more good stuff: When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21) Killing your slaves is OK according to God...
Here is Jesus APPROVING! of the beating of slaves: The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48)
The following should be killed without question according to the bible: someone who doesn't listen to a priest (Deuteronomy 17:12), witches (Exodus 22:17), gay people (Leviticus 20:13), fortunetellers (Leviticus 20:27), whom ever strikes one of their parents (Exodus 21:15), cursing your parents (Proverbs 20:20)(Leviticus 20:9), adultery (any bible thumpers here ever do this one???) (Leviticus 20:10), the nonbelievers (ie, 75% of the world's population.. DEATH!) (2 Chronicles 15:12-13), this one is good - Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God (Deuteronomy 13:13-19), kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), working on sunday's (cops, firefighters, hospital staff, just about every these days...) you too should die according to our benevolent god (Exodus 31:12-15), killing the children!!! of sinners (all must die) (Isaiah 14:21), and so on. See a picture here about this kind and just god.
Also, for those who say the coming of Christ made the old laws irrelevant, remember “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17). "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17). Also, in Jesus' eyes, looking at another woman with lust and doing nothing is also means for death.
So I think there about 10,000,000 people on the earth at best who are not going to hell or killed on the spot. Not bad out of over 6 billion. So to all the god lovers out there, don't use your faith as justification to be anti-gay, don't pick one thing you don't like and run with it. There is a lot in there that if you did you would be locked up for a long time. Please take your dogma and go away since you are going to cherry pick just one iota of the hate in the "good book."
Just as homosexuality is an abomination, so is eating shellfish.
DEATH TO SHELLFISH EATERS!!!!!
I would like to point out that most of the rantings against the bible above are way out of context. Many uneducated Christians do the same thing take a few verses and make some inane argument that has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the chapter.
I will take Luke 12: 47-48 cited above since it is a teaching from Jesus. If you read further up it in verse 41 Peter asks if the parable is for everyone or just for those he was speaking to. So it is obvious this is a parable not to be interpreted literally. If you read throughout the new testament you will learn that the Master is God and the servant are his followers... or Christians. So these verses actually condemn hypocritical Christians and forgive those who are not! Jesus was using, as he often did, a parable to illustrate a principle.
Another example from above of a verse twisted and mangled....
John 7:19 when Jesus said Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?
Jesus is not saying that you need to obide by the old law. If you read down further it illustrates that he is pointing out the hypocrisy of the pharisees (i.e the religious Jews of that time). He points out that they were accusing him of healing a whole man on the sabbath. Guess what? This was against the old law! And he then rebukes the people for being judging him for breaking the old law when in fact the old law was impossible to keep and no one could follow it.
Incidentally that is the primary teaching of Jesus. That we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and that it is by grace alone that we are saved. Read Romans and you will see the message crystal clear.
The primary point is that you shouldn't read a verse and then try to make a point without truly reading and understanding the entire passage.
And by the way, I am a Christian who loves gay people. Gay people are some of the nicest and most compassionate people. I believe this is so because of how you have been treated by our society and because of this many of you know true pain and understand compassion and have a great need for grace! God Bless!
Indeed, under rational basis scrutiny, Congress is entitled to respond to new social phenomena one step at a time, and to adjust national policy incrementally. DOMA reflects just such a response.
I do believe the landscape is extremely fragile and violatile, however, such a strong stance FOR it should not have been made. To say it was the lawyers, is BS and we all know it. I have made it a point to stick with him but my decision is starting to look foolish. I understand the nature of the job and the balancing act he must have to perform everyday but again, to come out so strongly pro on this issue is a blow to his sincerity and campaign. Unless, he is gearing up to do away with Marriage alltogether and promote Civil Unions for ALL. But I doubt it. Funny how when the Religious POV starts to lose steam, they are now turning to an issue of $$. And in the economy, I am afraid that angle will surely score some points. Sad!! Because the local economies will surely profit only bolstering the states economies and taxes which will float to the national level as well.
Some of us tried to warn you during the campaign and took a lot of grief because we said Obama was a liar and a phony.
I'm sorry to say it, but we told you so.
Maybe now would be a good time for some of the Obama supporters to say you were wrong to attack us for pointing out the truth about Obama, and maybe it's time to apologize to us.
Hillary would never have let her lawyers write such an obnoxious legal brief.
And you know it.
Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a directive to her 30+ thousand employees stating that Domestic Partners of State Department diplomats would immediately begin receiving the same benefits as spouses. Since she is not the President, Madam Secretary can do very little to affect the despicable Defense of Marriage Act. However the Homophobe in Chief CAN do something about it. And today he did. He filed a motion to dismiss the case against the Defense of Marriage Act. In other words, Obama thinks DOMA, a federal law stipulating that no state needs to recognize same sex marriages from other states AND that the federal government does NOT recognize same sex marriages, is just FINE and DANDY!
-----------------------------------
Look, I am FOR gay rights, equal gay rights.
Your argument is not with me; it's with the Lightbringer you supported.
-- from: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues....
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Barack Obama
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.
Says the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy needs to be repealed.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Please, no more duplicate comments.
I volunteered for Obama. I canvassed in -10F weather (Alaska in November). I wrote almost 500 postcards. My husband in Iraq is fighting for our freedoms... doesn't that include the freedom of consenting adults to marry, regardless of gender?
What ever happened to getting government out of our lives and our bedrooms?
(What, no one noticed Obama's anti gay lifetime friends?)
As Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the Prop 8 suit, said, "If the National Democratic party does not, after 35 years of promises to our community, make sure we have full equal rights in this country, the gay divorce you are going to see is the gay communities' divorce from the Democratic party. We are a civil rights movement. It’s time we acted like one."
When I called Obama an anti-queer bigot on my blog Queers Against Obama, I was virtually mauled to death by a mob of gay Obamaniacs. I have been calling him out on his homophobia since his inauguration.
I was told I was "too negative" when I attacked him for the Rick Warren incident. LGBT people said I was an idiot for not recognizing the brilliance behind his strategy. "You gotta be the change you want to see", they told me.
To all you Stonewall Democrats for Obama:
Bite me.
NOW you think he might be homophobic? Hmmmm...the litany of examples I provided didn't convince you, Rick Warren didn't convince you...
Lemmings, the whole lot of you.
Rick Warren's invitation to his inauguration was my wake up call.
The only thing Obama cares about is getting re-elected in 2012; once you get that through your head, the less you'll be disappointed by him.
Where was his veto?
Obama trolled for votes by saying, more than once, that he opposed DOMA and would work to repeal it. It is Obama's lawyers who wrote this disgusting brief.
From the very top of this page "UPDATE: Mormon Bush holdover helped write and file anti-gay DOMA brief."
Does not sound like an Obama appointed Lawyer to me.
It is not for the President to make laws, it is for Congress. Where has Congress been on this?
One is Tony West, who -- guess what? -- was appointed by OBAMA.
"President Barack Obama yesterday announced his nomination of Morrison & Foerster partner Tony West to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice." http://tinyurl.com/llrwdx
Since Tony West is the Assistant Attorney general, he is the senior official in control of this case and this legal brief.
If you know anything about politics at the presidential level, you would know there is no way Obama's own appointee as Assistant Attorney General would file a disgusting brief like this unless he knew it would have the approval of the president who appointed him.
They could have chosen to make no defense in this matter or they could have written an entirely different sort of brief. U.S. Supreme Court Justices look at the same legal reasoning and yet come up with very different views of the legal merits of any argument.
No one required these lawyers to write this sort of brief; they knew it would please the man who sits in the Oval Office.
-- FISA & telecom immunity
-- ending the Cuban embargo
-- NAFTA
-- DADT
-- DOMA
-- state secrets (expanded)
-- extraordinary rendition (continued)
-- accountability
-- transparency
-- allow five days of public comment before signing bills
-- accepting public funding if the Republican did (McCain did)
-- single-payer once we took back the White House, the senate and the House (we did)
-- end income tax for seniors making less than $50,000
-- recognize the Armenian genocide
Maybe you'd like to add you own "favorites" among Obama's broken promises, pledges and commitments.
I repeat: His job is to ENFORCE the law. PERIOD. That is his JOB -- nothing else.
If he starts not defending the United States in court when its laws are challenged, he will be IMPEACHED.
I never cease to be amazed at how stupid his supporters are. They don't know the basic concepts of our system of government.
It is really hard to believe that they are this stupid.
http://mtmbloglife.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/que...
America has still made the best choice. If he vetoes any such bill, then maybe GLBT have a right to riot.
Do not let stupid bigots try and con you into supporting their agenda, especially the idiot "PUMA" Hillary supporters infecting this post on instruction from a fraudulent PAC.
What else did you expect? This is TNB: Typical N1663r Behaviour. Those jaboons got theirs, and to hell with everyone else.
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
---
This is what will happen if 2nd amendment rights supporters don't stick up for gay marriage supporters and vice versa.
I'd like to see your program, self proclaimed Smart Guy.
Civil rights for black people was won by nonviolent displays of courage, steadiness and integrity. Our main strategy was nonviolent protest, and as with Gandhi vs. the British in India, it proved mightily effective.
A minority trying to instill fear in a majority will not lead to effective goal achievement, but rather backlash and violence.
Yer not only not very smart, you are also rather ignorant!
Please tell me that you know there are black gay people. Because this statement makes it sound like you think the two are mutually exclusive... along with most of the gay media outlets. Instead of drawing a line between the civil rights movements of the past and the ones ongoing today, why haven't gay leaders sought to align themselves with those still alive who marched back then?
If the latter is proven to be true, he is worse than George Bush because with Bush, you knew what you were getting!
I'm not saying this issue should be put off, nor am I saying there will be ever be a convenient time to take this on - its far to important. But what I am saying is keep your faith and let time - not your expectations - be the judging barometer of this President. And hopefully for the people as well.
You write as if these are two mutually exclusive groups.
In a democratic society, it is inevitable that various individuals and groups will have their own conceived notions of what it means to be happy, or how this happiness must be obtained, or pursued. While the Declaration of Independence (not the US Constitution as some believe) enumerates that the "pursuit of happiness" is one of the unalienable rights, it does not specify what this means. Just what the pursuit of happiness means is something the people ultimately determine, as the Mormon's found out in the late Nineteenth century when polygamy was banned, first by legislative action (The Edmunds-Tucker Act) and later upheld by the US Supreme Court (Reynolds v. United States). Clearly, the voice of the people was against legalizing polygamy.
Why?
Because the voice of the people, upheld by the decision of the highest court in the land, determined that polygamy was not in the best interest of society and could not be justified as a legitimate "pursuit of happiness" because of the supposed threat this practice posed to society.
Using the current reasoning of same sex marriage advocates:
One could argue that polygamists were actively "pursuing happiness" and expressing their right to form sexually intimate relationships among consenting adults, in the privacy or their homes, and ultimately to solemnize these intimate relationships within the bonds of holy matrimony. So what if they weren’t born polygamists? What possible relevance could this have from a “secular” point of view?
One could argue that the "people" had no business imposing their moral judgments upon them or making them conform to what the "majority" determines is good and proper. When gay and lesbian advocates for same sex marriage express abhorrence at the practice of polygamy, aren’t they making a moral judgment? Would they on the one hand take the moral high ground and justify their right to pursue their happiness, and on the other, dismiss polygamist’s desire to pursue their happiness based on some irrational and invidious abhorrence to the practice of polygamy?
One could argue," what business does the government have in intruding upon the lives of ordinary citizens who are merely trying to form loving relationships and solemnizing them in marriage in accordance with their “civil and religious rights? "
Please understand, I am not comparing gays and lesbians to polygamists, nor advocating in their favor: but even if I was, from a purely "secular" perspective, so what? The analogy speaks for itself.
And that is the point exactly.
Since Massachusetts became the first state in the union to allow same sex marriage (and this by judicial fiat) only five other states allow same sex marriages while a whopping 38 states have moved to prohibit same sex marriage through legislative acts. Like the Mormons and polygamy, the voice of the people is against legalizing same sex marriage. And just like the Mormons and polygamy, the courts on the federal level opined that same sex marriage VIOLATES our understanding of how marriage has come to be defined within the cultural, political and social context of the United States, and that limiting marriages to opposite sex couples does not offend neither our collective understanding of marriage, nor the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (see Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 Minn 1971; US Supreme Court 409 U.S. 810 1972.).
Can the voice of the people overrule the rights of others? Yes. Can the government intrude upon the rights of others? It has done so in the past. Can the courts uphold the voice of the people? If history has taught us anything, they most assuredly can.
blah blah blah concern troll, blah blah blah gays are bad, but don't be mad at me for saying so blah blah blah.
my response: foad.
Amidoinitrite?
Like an idiot, you are responding to a post that is over a month old.
Go back to playing your video game.
Your own logic is quite hypocritical.
like a true idiot, you think you 'won' something here, but since you are such a moron, once again you are wrong*.
in other words:
urnotdoinitrite
now go back to your video game, loser.
*since I know you didn't figure it out while you were busy drooling on your shoes how I commented on a post that John originally posted in June - look at the "update" at the top of the post, which, since you are still stuck with your finger up your nose trying to understand, means this post was REPOSTED by the blog owner when I originally posted.
This isn't even the same person.
And I was talking about the comment you made before your reply.
You responded to an argument that had been posted 2 months before your own post.
So you can go back to being a hypocrite while I find something better to do than fuel your self-righteous crusade to prove yourself right.
And you just randomly decided to defend some other moron who you don't even know?
Yeah, right.
And even after I explained it to you, you still can't figure out that I posted that response when the actual entire blog post had been reposted, rather than just randomly trolling through old blog posts, fishing for a "gotcha" moment in the comments and failing, like you have chosen to do?
Your idiocy is really impressive.
Marriage is not a civil right. The government may choose to subsidize or tax behavior as they see appropriate.
Why are people still bitching about this?