Support NeoGAF

[Chumly]

Sure. Is Ron Paul a bigot? After all, he still doesn't support gay marriage or civil unions. Yes or no?

Are you still going to vote for Ron Paul, yes or no?

Since gaborn supports bigoted people he is also a bigot himself

 

[v1oz]

Marriage is not a right of religious institutions it's a secular institution that religious bigots think they have a right to keep for themselves.

Who said marriage is a right of religious institutions. Even non religious people get married. And none Religious people also enter Civil Unions. As far as I'm concerned Civil Union = Marriage.

 

[NullPointer]

From Andrew Sullivan today:

..
The interview changes no laws; it has no tangible effect. But it reaffirms for me the integrity of this man we are immensely lucky to have in the White House. Obama's journey on this has been like that of many other Americans, when faced with the actual reality of gay lives and gay relationships. Yes, there was politics in a lot of it. But not all of it. I was in the room long before the 2008 primaries when Obama spoke to the mother of a gay son about marriage equality. He said he was for equality, but not marriage. Five years later, he sees - as we all see - that you cannot have one without the other. But even then, you knew he saw that woman's son as his equal as a citizen. It was a moment - way off the record at the time - that clinched my support for him.

Today Obama did more than make a logical step. He let go of fear. He is clearly prepared to let the political chips fall as they may. That's why we elected him. That's the change we believed in. The contrast with a candidate who wants to abolish all rights for gay couples by amending the federal constitution, and who has donated to organizations that seek to "cure" gays, who bowed to pressure from bigots who demanded the head of a spokesman on foreign policy solely because he was gay: how much starker can it get?
...

The full post here.

 

[kinggroin]

Do you guys believe marriage is a religious or secular institution?

I guess how I'd define it would determine my stance on the issue.

Any links to the origin of marriage?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I would like him to sign an executive order to treat all legally married foreign same sex partners seeking a green card exactly the same as straight couples. I believe to that extent he would have the authority to act because the enforcement of laws is at the executive branch's discretion and it would just be a matter of providing the same expedited process to get legal status for a foreign spouse.

Funny, most libertarians wouldn't even support this

 

[Boogie]

I would like him to sign an executive order to treat all legally married foreign same sex partners seeking a green card exactly the same as straight couples. I believe to that extent he would have the authority to act because the enforcement of laws is at the executive branch's discretion and it would just be a matter of providing the same expedited process to get legal status for a foreign spouse.

and that is the necessary action for him to take for you to "respect" Obama on this subject?

Do you respect Ron Paul on the subject of Gay Marriage?

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

From Andrew Sullivan today:


The full post here.

He was getting choked up on NPR.

 

[rdrr gnr]

I'm glad to see the liberal use of the b-bomb. Labeling works and I always find those posters immensely agreeable. It's always this Voltarian, falsely dichotomous argument that tunes me out me out to a position I wholeheartedly support. The naivete of criticizing his support because it happens to be politically expedient just reeks of fundamental misunderstanding and ignorance when comes to the structure and function of politics. I'm sure there is a "Change" shirt that reeks of stupidity and disappointment somewhere in your closet.

 

[mannerbot]

That is not exactly the same thing though as most gay people don't get any water fountains at all.

I agree. That was only a specific response to "but they can have the same rights, can't they just call it something different?"

 

[eBay Huckster]

It wouldn't even matter if they were 100% equal in rights. There doesn't need to another term for the same institution.

This is true, but in this case I feel you've gotta have your Sipuel v. Board of Regents, Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents before your Brown v. Board.

Start getting rid of the differences between the two and suddenly there's no reason to keep the distinction there.

 

[Devolution]

Who said marriage is a right of religious institutions. Even non religious people get married. And none Religious people also enter Civil Unions.

Various religious institutions are saying that. Are you being willfully ignorant or what.

This is true, but in this case I feel you've gotta have your Sipuel v. Board of Regents, Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents before your Brown v. Board.

Start getting rid of the differences between the two and suddenly there's no reason to keep the distinction there.

Just giving it another name is creating a divide that doesn't need to exist. There is no reason to categorize marriage. To do so is creating inequality.

 

[Arment]

Do you guys believe marriage is a religious or secular institution?

I guess how I'd define it would determine my stance on the issue.

Any links to the origin of marriage?

It doesn't matter how it originated but how it is now. Marriage is not a religious institution anymore.

Wikipedia says marriage pre-dates written history, so I'd say it belongs to absolutely no one.

 

[Gaborn]

and that is the necessary action for him to take for you to "respect" Obama on this subject?

Do you respect Ron Paul on the subject of Gay Marriage?

Ron Paul has said that he supports the rights of couples to get married even though he might personally disagree with that from a religious perspective. So my answer is yes.

 

[Koomaster]

Barack Obama is the first sitting president to openly support gay marriage. He is fighting for gay rights and has in the past. If you can't be happy about this, then I just don't know what to say. Give the man credit.

He's going to have to do more than that if he wants a cookie from me. :/

Giving me the cold shoulder for years only to come around later and say that I'm alright doesn't mean I have to give anyone credit or respect.

So the thought is that if he came out in support years ago he wouldn't have been elected... well what about right after? He had four years to say something and is waiting till now. I don't buy it. Nothing will probably be done about this anyway, just another bunch of empty words and promises from another politician who is just courting my vote.

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

Do you guys believe marriage is a religious or secular institution?

I guess how I'd define it would determine my stance on the issue.

Any links to the origin of marriage?

Man, even that doesn't really help.

I'm a born against Christian, and marriage has a definition for as part of my faith. But certainly doesn't stop me from wanting gay people to be able to get married.

Jesus didn't give a shit about marriage. He care about divorce.

Edit: Take also into account that I have been asked to leave 3 churches now. (Yeah, another one since last time.) So, I'm a pretty shitty Christian.

 

[reilo]

Ron Paul has said that he supports the rights of couples to get married even though he might personally disagree with that from a religious perspective. So my answer is yes.

Astounding.

 

[commedieu]

The two sinks are not of the same quality - so there is a practical difference.

The only difference between Civil Unions and Marriage is in the name. But you have the same legal rights and protections so its not comparable to racial segregation. In fact it's nothing to do with race at all.

So it's not like gay couples will be made to sit on different seats on buses or planes. They will sit together with straight couples.

 

[Boogie]

Ron Paul has said that he supports the rights of couples to get married even though he might personally disagree with that from a religious perspective. So my answer is yes.

And Barr?

 

[Evlar]

Astounding.

The definition of a double standard.

 

[Devolution]

Do you guys believe marriage is a religious or secular institution?

I guess how I'd define it would determine my stance on the issue.

Any links to the origin of marriage?

Marriage as a partnership came long before Abrahamic bullshit.

 

[Opiate]

The mere fact that a second institution is created for the sole purpose of denying gay couples marriage identifies the inherent inequality.

Precisely. If the two statuses are exactly equivalent, why would you need to go to the trouble of creating a second status at all? Why not just use the one which already exists, "marriage?"

The answer to those questions is never stated out loud.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Ron Paul has said that he supports the rights of couples to get married even though he might personally disagree with that from a religious perspective. So my answer is yes.

Gaborn, he would never actually do anything to help gay couples get married, he'd never sign a law that would protect gay couples, and you want to support him? Hypocrisy. So much.

 

[-COOLIO-]

He conveniently waited until election year I see.

i loled

christ

 

[whitehawk]

Do you guys believe marriage is a religious or secular institution?

I guess how I'd define it would determine my stance on the issue.

Any links to the origin of marriage?

Depends on who you are. To many americans it is a 'sacred' religious ceremony between a man and a women. But I grew up not knowing that marriage had ANY religious connotation. I even thought that marriages often took place in churches because they are nice venues, not for religious reasons. I just saw it as a commitment of two peoples love for each other.

 

[Crumpet Trumpet]

I dislike when people bring race into these sort of matters because it inevitably leads to the tired oppression olympics argument that seems to plague every marriage equality discussion. The problem is that the very need for a label of "civil union" separate from the label "marriage" is in and of itself a sort of concession to the religious right that they own marriage, which is definitely not the case.

 

[Gaborn]

And Barr?

I have real issues with Barr. I've never said I'm a "fan." I did vote for him in 2008 as a representative of the Libertarian party. I wouldn't say I "respect" him but since he advocated the proper positions (including the repeal of DOMA which he co-wrote) I could tolerate him. But in a word, no, I don't "respect" Bob Barr on gay rights.

 

[Gaborn]

Gaborn, he would never actually do anything to help gay couples get married, he'd never sign a law that would protect gay couples, and you want to support him? Hypocrisy. So much.

I believe we've been through this before. Your response would only be valid if the ONLY reason I vote for a candidate is their position on gay rights.

edit: Didn't mean to DP.

 

[Kusagari]

Ron Paul has said that he supports the rights of couples to get married even though he might personally disagree with that from a religious perspective. So my answer is yes.

So you're fine with him because he says he doesn't care if you get married, even though he'll support things like DOMA which hinder your cause.

Makes a lot of sense.

 

[Korey]

Who said marriage is a right of religious institutions. Even non religious people get married. And none Religious people also enter Civil Unions. As far as I'm concerned Civil Union = Marriage.

So what's the point of calling it something different?

I'll answer that for you: to make a group of people feel inferior to other humans. That's literally the only point. Which is the basis of why California's Supreme Court recently struck down Prop 8.

It's exactly the same as:

 

[Clevinger]

He's going to have to do more than that if he wants a cookie from me. :/

DOMA and DADT?

 

[giga]

Ron Paul has said that he supports the rights of couples to get married even though he might personally disagree with that from a religious perspective. So my answer is yes.

Citation? How does Ron Paul plan on giving equal rights to LGBT individuals? Not just marriage--all rights.

So you're fine with him because he says he doesn't care if you get married, even though he'll support things like DOMA which hinder your cause.

Makes a lot of sense.

Seriously.

 

[cousins]

Precisely. If the two statuses are exactly equivalent, why would you need to go to the trouble of creating a second status at all? Why not just use the one which already exists, "marriage?"

The answer to those questions is never stated out loud.

.

Way more eloquent then I could've ever put it.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I believe we've been through this before. Your response would only be valid if the ONLY reason I vote for a candidate is their position on gay rights.

No. Whether you vote for him based on his economic policy, his foreign policy, or any other policy isn't' relevant when you support his policy on gay rights at the same time you don't give Obama is just due for being the most pro gay President in the history of this country.

 

[reilo]

The definition of a double standard.

You know what the definition of "too little too late" is?

Creating DOMA, making sure it passes, and then changing your mind a decade plus later.

 

[v1oz]

What about "separate but equal is inherently unequal" do you have trouble with? The segregation of institutions (in the case of marriage / civil unions) is in and of itself sufficient to call it unequal.

It maybe percieved to be unequal in your mind. But not in reality in the legal sense. I do live in the UK, where civil partnerships are legally equal to civil marriage. The only difference is the name.

 

[The Librarian]

I've said Ron Paul's position on marriage is bigoted. (although in fairness to Paul he's said in the last few years he supports the right of gays to marry even though he personally disapproves of the practice).

Where's this same fairness for Obama?

 

[J10]

Do you guys believe marriage is a religious or secular institution?

I guess how I'd define it would determine my stance on the issue.

Any links to the origin of marriage?

It's both. There already are two types of marriage. And we know the secular (state) version is the one that actually matters since god doesn't give out tax benefits, insurance discounts and visitation rights.

 

[Koomaster]

DOMA and DADT?

MORE!

 

[Devolution]

It maybe percieved to be unequal in your mind. But not in reality in the legal sense. I do live in the UK, where civil partnerships are legally equal to civil marriage. The only difference is the name.

There's no reason for the separation other than to single out gay people. I couldn't give a fuck less if the legalities are 100% the same.

 

[Fenderputty]

Ron Paul has said that he supports the rights of couples to get married even though he might personally disagree with that from a religious perspective. So my answer is yes.

Doesn't Paul do this under the guise of "states rights" though? It should be left to states rights?

He gets to say this while also letting Texas and thes rest of the south do as they please. It's an issue that needs natioal support. Something, which I don't believe Paul does.

 

[Manmademan]

Precisely. If the two statuses are exactly equivalent, why would you need to go to the trouble of creating a second status at all? Why not just use the one which already exists, "marriage?"

The answer to those questions is never stated out loud.

i wouldn't say never.

There are plenty of people (like myself) who consider "marriage" a religious issue the state has no business in.

Everyone, gay or straight should be extended civil unions under the law (instead of a "marriage license") and if you'd like a religious ceremony on top of that to say you've been "married" under the diety of your choice, then that's between you and the church.

As it is, the debate about what should be a simple legal and human rights issued is hopelessly muddied with what "God" does or does not want, or what is "moral" when it's entirely irrelevant.

 

[Clevinger]

Ron Paul has said that he supports the rights of couples to get married even though he might personally disagree with that from a religious perspective. So my answer is yes.

How is that different from Obama's previous bigotry supporting position? Neither of them would have signed anything federally pro-gay marriage, and both would have supported states doing what they wanted. Why is one fine and one supporting bigotry?

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

I could care less about Ron Paul's economic policy, because I can get past how horrible his bigoted social policies are.

 

[v1oz]

Various religious institutions are saying that. Are you being willfully ignorant or what.
.

Yes I am because I do not live in the States. It's not a Religious issue as far as I am concerned.

 

[Devolution]

i wouldn't say never.

There are plenty of people (like myself) who consider "marriage" a religious issue the state has no business in.

Everyone, gay or straight should be extended civil unions under the law (instead of a "marriage license") and if you'd like a religious ceremony on top of that to say you've been "married" under the diety of your choice, then that's between you and the church.

As it is, the debate about what should be a simple legal and human rights issued is hopelessly muddied with what "God" does or does not want, or what is "moral" when it's entirely irrelevant.

Honestly people who consider marriage a religious institution should go read a history book.

Yes I am because I do not live in the States. It's not a Religious issue as far as I am concerned.

The whole argument is that religious zealots don't want gays to be umbrella'd under the same term because they're bigots. Do you understand now?

 

[kame-sennin]

I don't get it, why are people coming to the ferocious defense of Obama when he effectively floundered on the issue? And we were met with scores of states voting on it? The precedent for retaining and granting rights for a discriminated minority are already there. It pisses me off that he was so cowardly for years.

Party over principles.

 

[whitehawk]

I could care less about Ron Paul's economic policy, because I can get past how horrible his bigoted social policies are.

Did you mean...

I couldn't care less about Ron Paul's economic policy, because I can't get past how horrible his bigoted social policies are.

 

[Boogie]

Honestly people who consider marriage a religious institution should go read a history book.

lol what

 

[reilo]

Did you mean...

He's also a born against Christian.

 

[BocoDragon]

This might just be lip service from Obama.. But I'm happy to hear it.