Doesn't Obama think the same thing about it being up to the states?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Obama announces support for same-sex marriage
- Thread starter Cheebo
- Start date
- Status
Doesn't Obama think the same thing about it being up to the states?
now you've done it
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
It's a fair question for someone who believes in states rights as Gaborn does (from what I remember).
Doesn't that work both ways, though? He'd be fine with states banning gay marriage as well. I completely understand how you'd dislike Obama, but I don't understand why you're OK with Paul not only personally being a bigot, but wouldn't oppose bigotry at either the state or federal level.
Government-man
Member
What matters is what the (contemporary) religious institution carrying out the ceremony defines as marriage. For example, The swedish curch accepts accepts gay marriage and ceremonially weds gay couples. It was the choice of the curch. There is also the state marriage, which both hetero- and homosexual people can use to be married by law but without any involvement of a religious institution. The only difference between the two is that there is a priest conducting a ceremony in the former.
This actually helps me a great deal on forming my opinion on the issue!
For the record, my point of contention isn't whether gay men and women should have the same civil liberties as everyone else, but the arguing over semantics and the intertwining of what may or may not be a religious institution, with the state.
Arguing that whatever it was, is not the same as it is today sort of helps. The label argument helps more though.
Wow, that joke just totally sailed over your head.
I do object to that actually. You asked Ron Paul's definition of marriage equality, you didn't ask mine. My position is simple: The government may not discriminate. I don't have a problem with a private business discriminating on it's own, but I object to, for example, public buses being segregated, businesses FORCED to segregate as was the law in many southern cities and states. I object to legally forced segregation and I object to the legal regime inherent in Jim Crow.
Similarly, while I don't personally object to Ron Paul and President Obama's position it should be fought in the states I do not believe that ultimately states should be permitted to discriminate against consenting adults in marriage. There is a long line of cases that tie the protections in the constitution to the states as well and I think that should be controlling. However as a political matter I don't object to a lesser position either.
Sure, I see Ron Paul as a neutral force on gay marriage. He believes people should be able to form their own associations even if he disagrees with their choices personally, but he also believes in states rights to set their own marital policy. I think given the general trajectory his position on gay marriage would not be harmful to the cause of liberty and freedom. I'm sure there would be some states (like NC today) that back away from equality but the trend will continue.
Duane Cunningham
Member
Hey, check out the FB update our local Fox affiliate coincidentally decided to run this afternoon! https://www.facebook.com/fox4morningnews
Devolution
Member
My mom and dad got eloped. No religion involved yet they are married.
what are you even talking about? how is a jewish person choosing to wear traditional clothes equivalent to a gay couple not being allowed to have the marriage title? the person you quoted was referring to mandating jewish people to wear a star, singling them out, in comparison to mandating gay couples to use a seperate term for marriage than straight couples. not to mention that he was being sarcastic..since that would be really messed up.
choosing to single yourself out is a right anyone should have, but it is completely unrelated to law mandating you to be singled out and seperated.
NullPointer
Member
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
But the problem that I see is if you have someone like Ron Paul who is so passionate about states rights, that he would allow a state to do whatever it saw fit and if you have the court system and the general public in support of said amendments or laws then who protects the minorities?
Mine did too. By a judge in San Francisco city hall.
You don't have to marry in a church people. Where do you get these ideas?
No, I actually disagree with that. I believe in one of the Rachel Maddow interviews Paul (or it may have been his son Rand) articulated very much the same thing, that the problem with the Jim Crow south was the legal framework enshrining the discrimination and requiring it and that that was unacceptable.
NullPointer
Member
A religiocentric history of the world taught from an early age and buttressed daily.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
But I suppose that is my question. Why was it unacceptable? What about the framework made it unacceptable to a person like Ron/Rand Paul? Why is Jim Crow unacceptable for them but yesterday's amendment to ban gay marriage in NC is acceptable?
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Part of the boogyman behind the 'threat' of same sex marriage is a cocktail mix of:
- general social disorder
- setting 'bad examples' for the children
- allowing children to be raised by gays thus 'ruining' their childhood
- a vague but worrying 'devaluation' of hetero couples unions, in a social sense if not legal sense.
- a direct challenge to biblical 'law' and placing the primacy of the bible as singular roadmap for the life of man (for the people who are heavy into the evangelical thing)
- latent anxiety born out of a conservative culture which demonizes sex and sexuality: being gay strongly implies that sex is for social bonding (and fun!) outside of procreation.
etc, etc.
Basically, while there's no rational threat to straight married people from gay marriage, the subjective, social factors are numerous. Mostly it all boils down to the status quo of society being upended in a way that hits home - the basic notion of what a family unit is. It's easier to demonize LGBT people and project all one's insecurities onto them, than it is to stop and ask ones self just why the notion of same sex marriage is unsettling.
Remember, for people who have grown up absorbing the latent social memetics of conservative sectors of society, there's still a lot of queasy unease about homosexuality, period. It has been treated as a sexual perversion and a "dirty" thing for too long and the taint and stigma of that association still lingers even if at a subconscious level for a lot of people. Gay is a 'seedy' concept for some people, even if they lack the language to explain why. The Freudian slips that sometimes happen are telling... being gay is associated directly with lack of sexual maturity or control, with sexual predation, uncleanliness, and bad moral character.
It's relatively easy to incite moral panic by setting the baggage homosexuality has upon an institution like marriage, which (perhaps hypocritically given its failure and divorce rate) is still held up as a beacon for society and literal symbol of purity and purpose.
In this sense, there is a truly massive generational change incoming. People under 30 today have massive advantage over the previous several generations in terms of their exposure to people who are LGBT, and have experienced this at a young enough age that reality has an easier time winning out over inherited cultural memes.
One must wonder how many people in the current over-40 generations are going to end up as That Embarrassing Grandparent in a couple of decades. You know, the future equivalent of the grandpa who makes everyone really uncomfortable at the table, when he starts going on about how he won't "buy a Jap car, because the Japs are putting bombs under the trunks to blow us up, cuz their still tryin' ta get us, just like all their spies we locked up durin' the war, the ones what was pretendin' they wuz Americans."
(This last is a real person. A friend's grandfather, who never misses a chance to warn people that their Japanese branded car has a bomb, and the "Japs" are waiting for their chance to take over.)
- general social disorder
- setting 'bad examples' for the children
- allowing children to be raised by gays thus 'ruining' their childhood
- a vague but worrying 'devaluation' of hetero couples unions, in a social sense if not legal sense.
- a direct challenge to biblical 'law' and placing the primacy of the bible as singular roadmap for the life of man (for the people who are heavy into the evangelical thing)
- latent anxiety born out of a conservative culture which demonizes sex and sexuality: being gay strongly implies that sex is for social bonding (and fun!) outside of procreation.
etc, etc.
Basically, while there's no rational threat to straight married people from gay marriage, the subjective, social factors are numerous. Mostly it all boils down to the status quo of society being upended in a way that hits home - the basic notion of what a family unit is. It's easier to demonize LGBT people and project all one's insecurities onto them, than it is to stop and ask ones self just why the notion of same sex marriage is unsettling.
Remember, for people who have grown up absorbing the latent social memetics of conservative sectors of society, there's still a lot of queasy unease about homosexuality, period. It has been treated as a sexual perversion and a "dirty" thing for too long and the taint and stigma of that association still lingers even if at a subconscious level for a lot of people. Gay is a 'seedy' concept for some people, even if they lack the language to explain why. The Freudian slips that sometimes happen are telling... being gay is associated directly with lack of sexual maturity or control, with sexual predation, uncleanliness, and bad moral character.
It's relatively easy to incite moral panic by setting the baggage homosexuality has upon an institution like marriage, which (perhaps hypocritically given its failure and divorce rate) is still held up as a beacon for society and literal symbol of purity and purpose.
In this sense, there is a truly massive generational change incoming. People under 30 today have massive advantage over the previous several generations in terms of their exposure to people who are LGBT, and have experienced this at a young enough age that reality has an easier time winning out over inherited cultural memes.
One must wonder how many people in the current over-40 generations are going to end up as That Embarrassing Grandparent in a couple of decades. You know, the future equivalent of the grandpa who makes everyone really uncomfortable at the table, when he starts going on about how he won't "buy a Jap car, because the Japs are putting bombs under the trunks to blow us up, cuz their still tryin' ta get us, just like all their spies we locked up durin' the war, the ones what was pretendin' they wuz Americans."
(This last is a real person. A friend's grandfather, who never misses a chance to warn people that their Japanese branded car has a bomb, and the "Japs" are waiting for their chance to take over.)
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
he wrote a letter to a gay republican group in Massachusetts, back when he was running there, which said the complete opposite. lol
I'm not even surprised by this anymore. I expect it.
Because in their view there is a difference between a legal framework and culture that affects every facet of public life, transportation, ability to find work, where you can eat and such... and the ability or not to get married. Again, I think it's personally a position that doesn't go far enough but it DOES go far enough I don't have an issue with him since he's so fantastic on other issues.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
I'm sure many gay couples would disagree with their stance that not being able to marry isn't as significant. But again, you are choosing to overlook/ignore clearly bigoted views (your argument towards Obama) in order to support a politician.
So, next question.
So what the fuck is the argument against gay marriage here? The right for them to have the exact same legal rights as everyone else (as far as a man and woman would) or the right to have the ceremony take place in a church?
I'm so confused.
At this point, if a civil union gives them the exact same rights as a man/woman union, where does the word marriage even come into play? Aren't they then, married as recognised by the government, despite what bigots see them as?
Am I just wrong on what civil union even entails? I assume so if the distinction had to be made in the first place.... it can't be exactly the same.
If not, what's missing as far as rights go?
And bear with me. I'm learning a lot about the subject and myself while trying to be as honest as possible.
So what the fuck is the argument against gay marriage here? The right for them to have the exact same legal rights as everyone else (as far as a man and woman would) or the right to have the ceremony take place in a church?
I'm so confused.
At this point, if a civil union gives them the exact same rights as a man/woman union, where does the word marriage even come into play? Aren't they then, married as recognised by the government, despite what bigots see them as?
Am I just wrong on what civil union even entails? I assume so if the distinction had to be made in the first place.... it can't be exactly the same.
If not, what's missing as far as rights go?
And bear with me. I'm learning a lot about the subject and myself while trying to be as honest as possible.
kame-sennin
Member
I think if someone openly holds a bigoted position, we can call them a bigot. Prior to this announcement, Obama did not support equality for gay couples. If this position was contrary to his beliefs, that is even more immoral because he knew he was denying basic rights and dignity to millions of people, but chose to do it anyway.
That may be. My point is that the public has a responsibility to hold politician's feet to the fire. We never need to give anyone a "pass" because they are being politically calculating. In fact, giving politicians a pass is abdicating our responsibility as citizens in a democratic society. In doing so, we make it easier for elected officials to do the wrong thing. Politicians will only behave morally if the public forces them to.
If we play this game, we will always lose.
If Obama really had a crisis of conscience, than we can at least support the man for becoming a more moral person. But we all know that isn't the case. Obama has always known what the moral position was. I can not tell you why he finally chose to come out in support of equality, or whether that decision was a political calculation. But we can be fairly sure that Obama did not suddenly find religion on the issue.
My wife and I were married by a justice of the peace, and we had a secular wedding.
Chruch weddings are overrated. We got married at the Park of Roses. Our wedding pictures are full of flowers, trees, and sculptures.
That's odd, because you seemed pretty certain it was for political reasons a few posts ago.
Devolution
Member
Read Kaijima's post. There are many reasons but the core logic is always "eww gays" or the insistence that they need to be granted separate terms for the same institution. The fact that gays would need a whole new term is discrimination regardless if the rights are 100% the same. You are declaring them different in doing so. The idea that they aren't is betrayed when a whole new term has to apply to their marriage status.
I think it's more a philosophical difference then a bigoted one. Ron Paul has said that he has no problem with states legalizing gay marriage. Now, you may disagree with that approach but calling it "bigoted" is probably unfair. That's different then saying "I don't believe gay couples should be able to be married. I support Civil Unions"
It's only an issue if the label is bad, if its some sort of a slur. I've been to 3 same sex weddings myself. And I have gay family members including a sister. The main issue with gay people is "coming out". Most gay people would love to be open with their sexuality and to be easily identified. They are tired of pretending, tired of hiding in the shadows.
In the same way you have heterosexual couples and you have homosexual couples. You have Civil Marriages and Civil Partnerships. And no its not segregation or racism - that's pure proganda and deliberately misleading people by propagating social falsehoods. All just minded people will tell you that a homosexual human is equal to a heterosexual human. So just as calling someone heterosexual is not in anyway racist or segregatatory just because it's different. Neither is the use of the name Civil Partnership. Particularly because legally you have the same rights. And it also gives you and' identity' which you never had the privilege of before.
So that doesn't tell me anything about what I questioned originally. He doesn't say anywhere there that he supports the rights of gay couples to get married. He does admit though that he's an open bigot and would allow states to pass bigoted laws.
That position is far worse than anything Obama has done with regards to marriage equality. Especially so when you consider Paul's words and actions on DOMA and DADT.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Except one person actually has done more to further gay rights than the other. Words may be more important to you but actions are more important to me and this President more than any before him has acted to further gay rights while Ron Paul stands in the background saying 'he wouldn't stand in the way' in a state where it's almost impossible for gay marriage to be passed for quite some time. One is more cowardly than the other IMO.
Devolution
Member
In creating a new term for homosexuals you are conceding they are different. There really is no defending it.
But he's fine with states banning gay marriage, even disregarding his personal views. How is that not bigoted?
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Why can't we just call it marriage? It is bullshit.
NullPointer
Member
Couldn't agree more, and we need to come up with new and innovative techniques to apply that pressure, now more than ever. Sitting in a park may raise awareness, but raising awareness if only the first and smallest step.
What we have right now is a public that can hear about and get primed on issues at the drop of a hat. What we don't have are effective and accessible channels for people to direct their fleeting and forgetful energies.
I have a few ideas myself, but until we connect engagement with technique we have to rely upon ethereal societal pressure, shifting political winds, gamesmanship and the judgement of politicians.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
yep
kame-sennin
Member
This is pretty heinous.
That's your entire response. In the context of that post, I was stating that I can not say for a fact that Obama made a political calculation. I believe he did, but no one here can prove that.
It's not a new term. It's existed for a very long time around the world.
Obama has also opposed every single amendment against same-sex marriage since he's taken office. So, no, he also has no problem with states legalizing gay marriage. It was the exact same position.
It's going to be fun living in Ohio this election season. I hate this state so much sometimes.
I get a kick out of the fact that some republicans are saying Obama shouldn't be wasting time thinking of this with all the issues going on...as the same party just pushed through the NC amendment banning it. Pathetic.
I get a kick out of the fact that some republicans are saying Obama shouldn't be wasting time thinking of this with all the issues going on...as the same party just pushed through the NC amendment banning it. Pathetic.
Fenderputty
Banned
I said this in a previous post, but leaving gay marriage up to states rights is a cop out. It would still allow states like Texas and the rest of the south enact bigoted policy. The conversation needs to be a national one.
Maybe calling Paul's approach "bigoted" isn't totally fair, but I'm not seeing much of a distinction since it allows states to stay as bigoted and lost in religious legislation as they want to.
So you're okay if a hospital doesn't allow a gay man to see his sick husband?
Or a company that fire every person found to be gay?
Why do we call heterosexuals, heterosexuals?That will answer your question.
And on other issues? The drug war? Civil liberties? Foreign policy? Again, stop pretending that I'm a single issue voter. I think Obama's position NOW, TODAY is better than Paul's on gay rights but on just about everything else? Nope.
Because he doesn't advocate that they do so. That is, a bigot believes they SHOULD be legally treated as less, Paul is for providing the states maximum leeway. That is not a bigoted position although I grant it may or may not be a good one.
No actually, it's more why do we call heterosexuals people and homosexuals homosexuals? That should clear things up for you.
OK, I see what you're saying.
- Status