-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Obama announces support for same-sex marriage
- Thread starter Cheebo
- Start date
- Status
Dreams-Visions
Member
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
So... you have bigger beef with someone who is pushing for gay couples to have MORE rights than they otherwise would have OVER someone who was ok with them in the status quo? Ok...
Given that it's not likely to win him more votes than he might lose in the states that actually matter in the electoral college, I can't see how it's for votes. And too late to be sincere would be after the election, when it would be the easiest to support this.
That's not to say he's doing this out of the bottom of his heart and he's free from criticism on this issue. Just that the people implying this was an easy decision and not risky at all in an election year are being silly.
Dude Abides
Banned
Well if we had only elected Ron Paul earlier we would now be living in gay marriage paradise.
Yep. All that support for DOMA was an elaborate ruse! Ron Paul, champion of gay rights.
Pseudo_Sam
Survives without air, food, or water
Define "pushing".
That's not quite right. I think you might be misrepresenting even your own words here.
So Ron Paul doesn't personally support gay marriage, but thinks this is up to an individual state to decide. Pres. Barack Obama didn't personally support gay marriage, supports civil unions, but thinks this is up to an individual state to decide. One supported some "rights" and the other supports none, so how is either one better than the other? And how is one a bigot over the other?
And why does Ron Paul's views on this matter in this thread?
Souldriver
Member
As an idealist I agree with you that politicians should stand for their convictions, and considering Obama probably always was in favor of gay marriage, he ideally should have voiced his opinion on this issue since day 1.
However, as a realist I can understand why he only slowly evolved on this issue to give his political career, and the people of America, time to get used to this. Besides, I'm also realistic enough to see the general political environment of America. Even him being pro-civil unions was a "better out of the bunch" position, even if I still frown upon it.
Next to that, you're highly principled answer and critique on Obama's position would be more understandable and defensible if you didn't also support politicians with very questionable views on gay rights anyway. It makes your outrage over Obama's position, which for the record is PRO GAY MARRIAGE now, very disingenuous looking.
Decisions as a public official don't happen in a vacuum.
This is part of a narrative that's been formed over the past three-four years. Remember in the heart of healthcare reform when gay groups were posting out statement after statement in disappointment about the lack of action?
Even a month ago, I believe the New Yorker pushed out a story about discontent within the White House about the lack of a clear stance from the President. Than we have Arne and Biden over the last two weeks - and, of course, North Carolina yesterday.
It became a necessity to form a position, and, frankly, Obama didn't take that radical of a stance.
In the statement, the President states that the decision should still be left up to the states.
Don't expect movement against the Defense of Marriage Act anytime soon.
This is part of a narrative that's been formed over the past three-four years. Remember in the heart of healthcare reform when gay groups were posting out statement after statement in disappointment about the lack of action?
Even a month ago, I believe the New Yorker pushed out a story about discontent within the White House about the lack of a clear stance from the President. Than we have Arne and Biden over the last two weeks - and, of course, North Carolina yesterday.
It became a necessity to form a position, and, frankly, Obama didn't take that radical of a stance.
In the statement, the President states that the decision should still be left up to the states.
Don't expect movement against the Defense of Marriage Act anytime soon.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Well, as a President of the U.S., as a candidate of a party being in favor of civil unions, campaigning on rights that gay couples otherwise wouldn't have, passing law that granted gay couples rights they otherwise wouldn't have, yea.
eBay Huckster
Member
I'm not endorsing continuing to give it another name or any of that; if I had my way marriage equality in the US would be universal rather than restricted to a handful of states.
The point I'm trying to make is that the "civil unions instead of marriage" divide seems to be following the path of the "separate but equal" divide in terms of how it's beginning to cease to exist for all purposes (i.e., winding up with one institution with one name) - as the barriers between the two continue to disappear as they did in the 1940s-1950s for African American civil rights, eventually we're going to reach the point where a Brown analogue is inevitable if we haven't already done so - or if legislation doesn't render one unnecessary.
Dude Abides
Banned
Because Gaborn hates Obama, worships Paul, and it's fun to watch him try to square that circle.
Not being from the US means I can give you a fresh and independent perspective - without the political and religious biases. And also I think you are naive in thinking, in your head, that changing the name of 'Civil Partnerships' to 'Marriage' will stop people from having prejudices. In fact as far as I am aware the term "Civil Union" is not a negative term - its a positive development. And whether you call it marriage or not, people will be still heavily be prejudiced against same-sex couples in 'principle not in name'. Things just don't happen 'that way', simply changing the name will not change long held attitudes. People will always have their prejudices, society's attitudes only change over time as people's understanding of the fundamental issues improves and as culture and beliefs begin to change gradually. Not because of the name. That will happen regardless of whether you call it or marriage or anything else.
Being a black person and a minority I know very well about being prejudiced against. Even I were called "white" it wouldn't change a damn thing.
When they advocate civil unions, yes I do on that issue. That is a BIG red flag for me. I've posted before how civil unions at the FEDERAL level (and I used to believe at the state level although I've softened my stance on that) risk retarding the fight for marriage equality.
wonderkins
Member
And still, the SS lolbertopia meanders the seven seas searching for a new beachhead on which to rest its tattered arguments. Of course, invariably forgetting that its inherent contradictions, and derelict consistency, renders the philosophy the definition of sophistry. A plaything of immature, callow minds.
Good on Obama. More of this guy; less of the coward who caved to Wall Street.
Good on Obama. More of this guy; less of the coward who caved to Wall Street.
Devolution
Member
I doubt there will even be one if we nip the shit in the bud and don't create separate but equal terms that highlight some sort of implied inferiority or inequality.
Creating separate terms only reinforces how prejudice people think in terms of gay marriage, that it's different and inferior. Why they hell can't you grasp this?
eBay Huckster
Member
This is very much true, but I don't see this shit getting nipped in the bud any time soon without a sweeping SCOTUS decision.
(Incidentally, that's what motivates me to campaign against anyone taking a position against marriage equality... including the people who are all "oh but they can just have CIVIL UNIONS")
Well, it's not so simple, really. You have to deal with the reality that the label marriage carries too much weight in the electorate.
It's pretty explicitly clear that the existence of Civil Unions does retard the fight for equality.
But I would say inaction is just as unsavory.
Is it better to potentially retard the battle for marriage equality but still have certain rights available? Or would you prefer to create an ideological binary that stands little chance of absolution?
And, of course, in general I don't think anybody here pretends that a legal or legislative victory would be a real cure all. Most of my family doesn't approve of my interracial relationship.
Devolution
Member
Good point.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
So you would rather gay couples have LESS rights with Civil Unions being passed than MORE rights with Civil Unions being passed. And even as you have said, on the state level civil unions have led to gay marriage. You are just saying for the hell of it that wouldn't happen at the federal level. I don't even know what to say.
Paul's views matter because people want to obsess over the fact I'm a libertarian rather than a democrat. That's pretty much it.
And as I said above, the reason I find Obama's previous position worse is I view civil unions as ultimately damaging to the cause of marriage equality. It makes it just that much harder to make the case to skeptical people that we NEED to go all the way. it doesn't stop progress, but I believe it slows it some in some states. I also believe if a state adopts it it's good for the couples in the state it happens in but it should NEVER be the "policy" that is supported.
Well, just to briefly answer that (because I've answered it so many times in the past) I can understand that view on the surface, and I respect it. From my perspective in 2008 when I voted for Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root I was voting for the Libertarian candidate. he publicly repudiated his stance on DOMA and on the drug war. I was not thrilled with Barr and did not consider him a good candidate but I consider his party so much better than Obama or McCain that I was willing to vote for him as an ideological expression rather than an ideal political expression. If Barr had not repudiated his position on DOMA though I probably would have just stayed home.
Personally yes I would. I believe if a state is close enough to equality they're willing to give us Civil Unions they're probably only a few short years of fighting and advocacy away from marriage equality. My worry with civil unions is they give less impetus to the cause of adopting marriage equality because the perception is the legislature has already dealt with the issue even though they did so in an unequal way.
No problem at all. If they are legally equal.
NullPointer
Member
How about being called a "person" rather than only ever as a "negro"? See the difference?
None of this ends bigotry in people's minds or in some actions. What it does is provide for more equality in the eyes of the law.
On that note I'm out of here with beers a waiting. This is a good day, try not to tear yourself up too much GAF.
It goes without saying that simple rebranding of homosexual relationships won't instantly remove centuries of prejudice and stigma. How, exactly, does making it easier to single a group of people out help advance the cause? Sure, bigots will discriminate regardless of the nominal title, but think of it in terms of employment application forms: why should homosexual couples be forced to designate their marriages as "civil unions" and expose themselves up to discrimination in that way?
Okay, but Barack Obama didn't support civil unions on the federal level. If that's what you're suggesting the president supports, you're misrepresenting his views. He thought and still thinks that marriage rights are a states issue. Sen. Paul's views aren't any more damaging than Obama's old views and vis a vis.
Well, I understand your position but I think on that point we'll agree to disagree.
That is not actually what he used to say. he used to say 2 things consistently 1. DOMA should be repealed. 2. he supports civil unions. Accepting those two premises as his common statements the inference is he supported some sort of legal framework for gay couples at the federal level, and that WOULD mean marriage except he explicitly said he supports civil unions.
It's not an odd position to have when you consider that, for the most part, Gaborn is a political conservative whose belief in small government dovetails with the GOP platform. He realizes that holding those closest to his political ideology to account for their stance on gay rights does nothing, so it behooves him to admonish Democrats and liberals who should 'know better' on the issue. Republicans can continue to obfuscate, play politics and practice bigotry, but god forbid Obama or other leading Democrats appear calculated in how they tackle an issue that still sees deep divisions in this country.
I'd just simply like an answer to the last set of questions. Is there prudence in inaction for the sake of a latter victory? Wouldn't that latter victory happen regardless?
Sadly, we exist in a shitty two party system with a lack of ideological options, which is strangely defined by social mores over anything else.
I'm sure in 30 years we'll be throwing sticks and stones about genetic rights and privacy.
I don't think Gaborn's a Charles Johnson neocon.
And by Charles Johnson, I mean the relevant Charles Johnson.
... No. I mean, you'd be SLIGHTLY closer if you called me a paleocon but you apparently haven't actually read the GOP platform. I am a libertarian and your smear is hilarious. Not surprising though.
Talon - I think there IS prudence in patience depending on the polling. Suppose a state like Alabama started to strongly build support for civil unions. THEN I could see an argument for that rather than marriage there because I don't see marriage happening soon. But in Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc I suspect it would behoove us to be more patient rather than leap at civil unions as a matter of policy. So I think it depends from an efficacious stand point but it's never my default "ok, let's do this and then try for more" position unless it's totally unrealistic to expect a shift on marriage in the near term.
Souldriver
Member
But this post kind of shows your double standard.
(1) You admit you're not a single issue voter, and that libertarian ideals are so important to you, that you are willing to make the trade-off and consider voting for a libertarian politician with a questionable record on gay rights. (2) On top of that you say you were only fully convinced to vote once Barr repudiated his DOMA stance.
Considering the first aspect your first post should have been "I don't agree with Obama on a lot, but good on him for supporting gay rights". You know, reasoned. Calling good positions when they're good, bad when they're bad. Regardless of the party the position is coming from.
Considering the second aspect, it's pretty unfair to give Obama shit for taking his stance so late, considering you were willing to vote for a person who only later on changed his stance on the same issue (a stance that's arguably still less just and favorable to your opinion).
Why are people arguing with Gaborn? Why?!? It's a waste of time. He prides libertarien ideology over candidates who support full civil rights for sam sex couples. We have known this. For. years. There is a reason he has been called an uncle tom of the gay community in multiple threads. He hasn't changed at all in years, he isn't now.
This should be a happy thread. Bleh.
Gaborn is on the extreme right of the gay community when it comes to the gay right movement. Not even the log cabin republicans would call Obama a bigot. He isn't going to budge people.
This should be a happy thread. Bleh.
Gaborn is on the extreme right of the gay community when it comes to the gay right movement. Not even the log cabin republicans would call Obama a bigot. He isn't going to budge people.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Exactly.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
the moral thing to do would be to do whatever you can to further gay rights. losing support from the get-go and hindering your ability to gradually improve things by trying to appear idealistic is foolish and selfish. im sure obama knows what the right thing is, but im sure he also knows that the best thing he can do for the gay community is stay in office for a full 8 years while making gradual changes rather than hand off the presidency to a jackass who wont do shit for gay rights.
holding a public position contrary to your beliefs is the right thing to do when it means you have a better chance at actually making a positive difference that coheres to your beliefs.
Pseudo_Sam
Survives without air, food, or water
Pretty sure Gaborn supports a candidate who supports full civil rights for same-sex couples. Did you fail to notice the multiple times he said he was a Libertarian? Or do you not know anything about the LP candidate?
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
People are showing the hypocrisy in Gaborn's statements and standards.
He supports a candidate who comes out against DOMA right before an election but he calls out Obama for only coming out for gay marriage 6 months before a reelection.
The more you have people who are openly gay. The more society will grow to accept and understand them over time. People should be free to come out. The laws are there to prevent discrimination in the work place and other places. Those employers should be fined. And sure you might not not get the job because you were openly homosexual, but why would you want to work for bigoted homophobes in the first place? You should never be ashamed of who you are as a person. In any case personally I think employers attitudes will change over time, especially as they to start to see more and more openly gay candidates applying and starting to work for them. It's not something you should hide.
Ron Paul is not a candidate who supports full civil rights for same sex couples. He is on the far right when it comes to gay rights, he doesn't even support civil unions.
Ron Paul doesn't support full civil rights for same sex couples, he supports states doing whatever they want, which includes banning those same rights.
MeBecomingI
Member
Amazing to see him finally say it publically. I always knew he was for it, but I figured he would wait until after the election season. Man has confidence and I like it.
This news made me happy!
This news made me happy!
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
What do you expect when you have someone who is so well known on GAF coming out and instead of congratulating Obama for doing the right thing, doing what Gaborn did and always does when ever Obama does something positive for the gay community.
Ok, first, on Bob Barr - again, I was willing to vote for him because I knew damn well the vote was entirely symbolic, I voted for the party more than the candidate (something a lot of liberals I know have said about Obama this time around). I view both of the major party candidates far too unacceptable to CONSIDER voting for on too many issues.
It really was a choice for me between Barr or not voting. Once he repudiated the drug war and DOMA it became easier to swallow his candidacy, although I never really trusted him.
As well, my problem with Obama wasn't even his objection to gay marriage, it was two-fold. First, his support for civil unions and SECOND the fact that his position was a LIE and he actually BELIEVED in equality. I think someone who KNOWS better and BELIEVES in better should be shamed for supporting bigotry.
And I would note that I've NEVER hid my issues with Barr either incidentally. I've consistently maintained I had a problem with him but would vote for him as better than the alternatives from a policy standpoint. I would also say it probably doesn't help that my issues with Obama are considerably deeper than gay rights.
Gary Johnson.
- Status