Discussion on:

Marriage for Same-Sex Couples - Wow

{ Inspired and enabled by the previous encouraging series of posts, of course! } ...

I read with shock and awe, the announcement from Barack Obama that he's now evolved his thinking to say (as reported, let me add) "I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

Personally I can't see how we as a community can do anything else but enable full access to full rights for all human beings.

Enabling other people to enjoy the same legal and moral rights that I do, doesn't diffuse or dilute those rights for me, whatsoever. Indeed the opposite.

I would have thought documents like the US Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the US constitution make people's fundamental access to rights very clear. All people being equal and all that stuff. Those and similar documents don't qualify people who have three limbs, red hair or vote Green (more's the pity, perhaps, on the latter).

But then there's the political reality. Like admitting that the War on Drugs makes drug lords and corrupt cops both very rich. Like admitting that the longer term outlook in Afghanistan is unchanged, despite thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars. Few political leaders would be so naive to ignore the outcome of a public statement in support of gay marriage, no matter how it is 'positioned' or 'massaged'.

Did Obama just put the pistol to his own head? Perhaps seeing the end of his presidency as a foregone conclusion, did he decide to take his own moral high-ground?

Or is he some inspired genius about to make yet another mark on the global political landscape?

If the sole intent is to allow partners to make life decisions and control a partners estate upon death. It still comes down to the states deciding what to allow and how to apply the desired measures. Don't redefine the term for marriage just to satisfy the "civil rights" of same sex partners in single household.

Marriage is already a bunch of other things than the church gig, so I definitely don't see where the huge problem would be in same-sex marriage.
On the other hand, if this "marriage term controversy" helps the "hegemosexual lobby" to prevent access to basic protections, then by all means circumvent it.

To me marriage is the act of creating a lifelong committment of yourself to your partner, in front of your friends and family and optionally God, and having the state notified for legal reasons. And I say this as someone who is going through divorce proceedings, and has spent much time thinking about it.

Many couples live together as common law couples. In my jurisdiction, if they live together for six months, they are considered common law couple, and they have most but not all of the rights of a married couple. But you can be common law in a passive sense. Being married in a ceremony is an active statement to the world.

I don't think that the state should ever define my right to choose my partner in life. I think a church can and should decide if they want to marry my partner and I, and they already do - as a non-Catholic for example, I can't be married by a Catholic priest. Leave all of that up to the churches to decide. Let the state keep their nose out.

You may not like the idea of gay marriage, but to openly oppose it, you have to go farther than that. You have to oppose equality. I am not a muslim or a jew, and I don't believe what they believe in, but I believe in their right to worship as they see fit(as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights to do the same). I am not gay, but I believe in the rights of all to chose who they love, and sanctify that love with a marriage ceremony and have all the rights as a married couple as straight married couples do.

I come at this as a bit of a libertarian. I'm not pushing some "agenda", I am concerned that so many people who want the government out of their lives in some areas are willing to use the government to discriminate in one of the most personal areas of anyone's life. If I want others to respect my rights, I have to also respect theirs.

I couldn't have said it any better.

I never expected him to support same-sex marriage either, but I have so much respect for him that he did and that he was honest and spoke about how he arrived at his evolving decision. We all know gay people, gay couples and I've never understood why they, as taxpayers, should not have the same rights as me.

Obama really had to take a stand on this issue, and I think he was being honest, come what may. I don't think he planned it as part of his campaign, it really came in response to the NC amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions and Joe Biden's comments that he was comfortable with gay marriage. The President had to make a stand.

Obama really put himself out there today and I think he said something that needed to be said. I think the focus should be on why states like NC would deny civil rights to taxpaying citizens because they have a different lifestyle than the norm.

His decision to make a stand will force his Democratic constituents to talk about their views on gay marriage. That may not play well in the south, but those people need to look past their prejudices and realize that we are all taxpaying Americans and deserve the same rights. Forget about the bedroom.

AV

PS: Thank you DNW for your post. One day you should explain how you came up with your name

Fawning over the courage of Barack Hussein Obama over how his opinion has evolved. Give me a friggin break! How can people be so duped by this stuff?

It was a political calculation, plain and simple. Even Joe Biden was chastised for upsetting the timing of the announcement, lest you think it was not a timed political calculation.

Will Barack Hussein Obama's support of gay marriage be part of the Democratic Party Platform? Im guessing no.

Will Barack Hussein Obama support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between people other than one man and one woman? Not in your dreams.

So what did Barack Hussein Obama do? He did what he does best. Drive yet another wedge into the minds of the electorate. Class warfare. Divisiveness, etc. Pit one group against another. Social demagoguery. That's what he does. And that's what he did again. No more, no less.

Just like the bogus war on women issue that was totally contrived, this was also a political calculation intended to distract attention from the REAL issues, including, but not limited to, the looming debt question that will, once again, arise as the newly established debt ceiling is pushed even higher - something Obama and the Democrats claimed would not happen again until well into the twenty-teens.

And what a distraction from those massive Barrack Hussein Obamas deficits, which, over the past three years of Obamas administration, have exceeded the GW Bush deficits over the entire eight years of his administration.

And what a distraction from the lives lost in Afghanistan - more over the past three years than the previous seven combined.

And what a distraction from the campaign lies spewed in the 2008 election.

And what a distraction from the scandals of this administration, including, but not limited to, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Holder, hidden records, secretive background, etc.

And what a distraction from $5 gasoline.

And what a distraction from an unemployment sector that remains terribly high.

And what a distraction from.......

The sad part is, people actually buy into the diversions.

...during Obama's term in office, no other politician has ever engaged in any of the following behaviors: "Drive yet another wedge into the minds of the electorate. Class warfare. Divisiveness, etc. Pit one group against another. Social demagoguery."

...the deficits, the war, the unemployment, and everything else (and the policies that created them) didn't exist on January 19, 2009, but auto-magically appeared from nowhere on January 20.

...his opposition has been doing everything in their power to help him succeed.

You would have done better to simply complain about the timing, without the added commentary.

.... you don't see the big picture ....... that is, my "big picture" ....... that is, even which "big picture" I'm referring to!

Re: "You would have done better to simply complain about the timing, without the added commentary. "

Next time, perhaps I'll check with you to determine how I should reply to all the different people around here.

as I read it, was that everything wrong in the world is the fault of Obama, with no acknowledgement of history or the conditions existing at his inauguration. In other words, pretty much the same tone heard on Fox News, from the WSJ, and from all the other "everything bad that happens is Obama's fault" talking herd.

That almost directly contradicts what I understand of your previously stated "big picture".

Obama expressed a personal viewpoint, that denying the legal and financial benefits of marriage to gays simply because they are gay is not consistent with Constitutional principles. Can he not have opinions because he is President?

..... of posting before someone criticized "the tone" of my message. That must be a record of sorts.

I guess I never realized that a message must have one distinct "tone" that appeals to, and can be understood by, scores, or hundreds, or maybe even thousands of readers.

I'll be sure to mind my timbre. I sure don't want to strike a sour note with a TR Moderator!

...approved.

Perhaps I explained it poorly. I had thought you more just than to imply a single individual could be responsible for problems that have been 30 years or more in the making.

My "bigger picture" might be better described as follows:

I can say with 100 percent certainty that AV (the person to whom my message was in reply) read my message, and took away from it something entirely different that you did (or someone else might have). It was intended for AV, who has other bits and pieces of this or that, which all makes my message something more tuned for AV's ears (eyes). (Realizing, of course, that other people will be reading it.)

To say it was an "inside joke" might be a good comparison. Likewise, AV has some "inside information" that you don't have, with which my message can be further processed and understood. As such, I might surmise that you and AV saw two totally different messages, at least in its totality.

Since the Republican-controlled NC legislature introduced an amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions, the media has had an ongoing discussion about marriage equality. Joe Biden's comments were in response to that ongoing conversation. Obama had to give more of a response than to say his views on marriage equality were "evolving", especially after Joe Biden's comments.

If it was a political calculation by Obama as you say, it was a poor one. There are 30 states that have some kind of gay marriage ban in place. I think he would have rather not talked about this extremely divisive subject at all, but he was backed into a corner.

I applaud Obama for his courage to give a very honest opinion of why there should be marriage equality. He spoke from the heart and risked his re-election because of his views. At the same time though, he gave hope to the many gay people in this country that they might one day be free to marry who they choose and enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples. I think his opinion will inspire younger voters who don't have a problem with marriage equality.

I don't think Obama wants to go any further with this issue at this time either, but now the issue has legs, so to speak and eventually it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the state amendments infringe on civil rights.

There is an upside for Romney in this too. The social conservatives will now feel more comfortable voting for him because he says he doesn't believe in marriage equality.

All of these social issues are a huge distraction for sure, but I think the election will still be decided on economic issues. Both parties share in the blame for our country's woes because they can't work together and fix the problems. The truth is, after almost four years of Obama's leadership, we are still just treading water and going nowhere. Everyone sees that. We need someone that has strong leadership abilities to get the country out of this, but sadly it isn't Obama or Romney.

AV

Joe Biden's announcement forced Obama's hand. He had to make a statement. Large forces within the Democratic party support gay rights, including marriage. If Obama said he could not back gay marriage now, or worse, that he could never accept the concept of gays being recognized as entitled to the status of married people, he would have ignited civil war in his party. So, he announced he had "evolved."

The more politic thing would have been to keep quiet while the rest of society worked closer to recognizing this as a human right. There are lots of moderate Democrats, as well as the whole evangelical group that has now become almost exclusively Republican, who are offended by it. He's just fired up more anger and opposition that he just didn't need. The whole gay marriage issue is a wedge, but it's not one that favors Obama.

The term Marriage is very badly misunderstood and instead of allowing Gay People to "Get Married" we should allow "Civil Unions" and remove the Legal Implications from the Cristian Beliefs of what Marriage is.

Enable Same Sex Couples to have the Same Legal Rights as Heterosexual Couples but remove the Term Marriage to anything but a Christian Joining and most defiantly remove the Legal Implications from the Christian Beliefs which to be perfectly honest where never there in the first place but have grown up Legally around the Church State to Propagate the Species.

The Pauline Church Introduced Marriage to Improve/Strengthen it's Powers hold over it's followers and the State followed along with Legal Rights for that Pauline Church Union. What should be freely available to any who wishes it here is the Legal Rights that go along with what we now call Marriage but to get rid of the Rabid Pauline Christian Fanatics we should remove all State Sponsored Legal Rights/Obligations from the Marriage that is accepted by the Church. It will at least give the Loony Christian something real to complain about when they realize that they have no more rights than any other member of the society who protects them from their own stupidity.

Personally I don't give a Rats if Same Sex Couples can marry or not but I do find it Discriminatory that they are prevented from having the same Legal Rights as others in the same Society for no better reason than that they like someone from their own sex more than from the other sex.

That is called "Individual Choice" and I really don't have a problem with it where as those Married Christians who come to my door uninvited attempting to Pervert me to their way of thinking along with their Wives and snotty Nosed Sick Children hoping for Sympathy should have the Legal Niceties removed from what they rely on as the Backbone of their flawed belief system to have the same Legal Rights as anyone else who doesn't care one way or the other.

The Problem here is the Word Marriage and it's the Lonnie Christian Groups who object most strongly with what is effectively stupid retorts that are not backed up by the sources that they quote. Remember despite Popular Belief Cinderella wore Fur Slippers not Glass and Electricity flows from Negative to Positive not Positive to Negative.

Marriage is a Legal Union between People and it's only the Church which claims that it's between a Man & a Woman for the Proposes of Procreation. Apparently if a Married Couple do not or can not have children they are somehow less than Married in the Eyes of some Church Members and Followers.

Personally the Heterosexuals have so badly messed up Marriage that I feel "What the Hell" let the Gays get married they couldn't make it any worse.

Col

"remove the Term Marriage to anything but a Christian Joining"

Replace 'Christian' with 'religious' and I'm with you. The government should do a 'Find and Replace All' operation on every occurrence of the word 'marriage' in our laws and substitute 'civil union'.

.... and Stoutism, Dwarfism, Ageism and any other -ism you can think of. It's time we abolished words like these (and the concepts behind them). ANY form of discrimination or prejudice is, and can be described by, 'Social Prejudice'. And Social Prejudice (or any sub-type) is, or should be, a crime. Social Prejudism on grounds of skin colour, sex, age etc. is just as ridiculous as on grounds of ginger hair, flat feet, green eyes, long/short/no hair. We are all Human.

With no prejudice on grounds of difference, the topic of 'same-sex' marriage goes away because any coupling or grouping just becomes a coupling or grouping of two or more people - each with identical rights and with no discrimination between or against them.

I once raised this in another forum and was told that the concept of 'Racism' should be maintained so that 'we can fight it'. I do of course exclude from this argument 'stupidism'. That's fair game.

Both are behavior sets around the concept homosexuality, which is an improper concept, so they are two sides of the same counterfeit coin. There are two underlying issues, viz. sexual inversion of the erotic instincts, a psychological condition; and the set of behaviors, including buggary, tribadism, cunnilingus, what-have-you called by the biologists simulated copulation, by the moralists mutual masturbation and perhaps by most people sexual perversion (although they are actually perversions of eroticism away from sexuality). When these two phenomena coincide in a person we call that person gay, or queer.

I spent a lot of time trying to make this distinction to a gay friend (he used to walk in the Gay Pride parade with a sign proclaiming "God is gay"), who started correcting his language but did not, alas, live long enough to transform his doctrines.

"sexual inversion of the erotic instincts"

Clarification, please. What is 'sexual inversion'? Googling the phrase yields results mostly from the early 20th century. Many of those refer to the phrase as synonymous with 'homosexuality' and describe it as 'innate'. With no modern definitions to work from, can we associate 'innate' with 'instinctive'? Do we all have the same 'erotic instincts'? If so, why do some find certain acts or behaviors as erotic while others do not? If not, who or what defines some instincts as 'proper' and some as 'improper'?

"the set of behaviors, including buggary, tribadism, cunnilingus"

The first and last of these behaviors are not limited to homosexuals; heterosexuals perform them too, along with variations of the second. Indeed, this heterosexual performed at least one of them this morning. Are these behaviors 'improper' only when homosexuals engage in them, or are they also 'improper' when done by heterosexuals? If 'improper' in all cases, is heterosexuality also then an 'improper concept'?

"we call that person gay, or queer."

We? Maybe you do, but many us have moved 'queer' to the same ashcan as 'sp!ck', 'k!ke', and 'n!gger'.

And no, I didn't give you the '-1' vote.

The words "heterosexual", "homosexual" and "bisexual" attempt to cover a set of bases, but close examination reveals that they do not work very well. It was in fact by consideration of the uses of "heterosexual" that I came to the realization that all 3 concepts are improper. Now, "homosexuality" is sometimes used as a synonym for sexual inversion, but the word has become too loaded with other meanings to be of any real use in intelligent discussion.

I have not said that the behaviors I mentioned are in any sense improper - if you think they are sinful, then obviously a two-sex couple engaging in them is more sinful than a one-sex couple, because the two-sex couple has the option of copulation, which is at worst a "natural sin" and at best a sacramental.

I have not said that anyone's instincts are in any sense improper. I merely attempt to clear the field for intelligent discussion of biology, behavior and, as you have brought it up, morality.

The gays where I work have a "Queer Resource Center", so obviously the connotations of words are different between California and South Carolina. Oddly enough, in British Manchester the people who call themselves queer are the sexual inverts who live as gays most of the time but about once a month engage in copulation just to prove they can.

.

are based in religion, also a human construct, they are, with respect to sexual conduct , constructs as artificial as homosexuality...

There are pills for that, surely.

Having read the OP around five times, I think the point is that people should do whatever they want and not worry so much about what other people think, as long as no other people, animals, or livestock get hurt in the process.

It's like p0rnography, it's impossible to describe but I know it when I see it.

a bill proposed by Senator Lieu would make it illegal to prescribe them in California.

As for the question of doing what one wants... what if doing what one likes gives scandal, i.e. encourages others to sin, or somehow degrades humanity? I think that the latter is perhaps important because rights are not really self-evident but derive from human dignity, and it is for the sake of human dignity that states forbid cruelty to animals, not for that of any rights the animals have.

Define 'sin' in a legal context. Gay marriage (or civil union, if you prefer) is a legal issue. No one disputes the right of a religious organization to sanction only those partnerships that meet its requirements. But US law supposedly isn't biased toward the beliefs of any one religion.

As to degrading humanity, if love between two people is the most degrading behavior being exhibited then I submit humanity is in pretty good shape.

Love is the only thing that cannot harm your neighbor, one of the NT letters says somewhere. But one might argue that mutual masturbation is contrary to human dignity - again with the understanding that it is more easily pardonable when the participants cannot copulate.

If not, why is it even anybody else's business?

All the religion-based arguments used by Christians against homosexuality (and they are all based on religion) ignore the statement in Genesis 1:27 that man was created in God's image and that in Genesis 1:31, God saw that everything he had created was "very good". For self-described Christians to call homosexuality (for want of another word) "un-Godly" or "the Devil's work" strongly implies their disapproval of the work of God...

Wasn't it Mark Twain who said, "Man is the only animal that blushes; or needs to."

There's little dignified about The Beast With Two Backs; at least, not if you're doing it right.

I forgot to add "in the privacy of one's bedroom with two (or more) consenting adults"

The right to privacy really blows apart the whole idea that particular sexual activities are somehow morally wrong, an affront to humanity., or there is harm in encouraging others to do whatever it is they want to do within the legally defined boundaries of their bedroom, (with other consenting adult or adults, and with whatever food products or industrial machinery they might fancy.)

My statements about livestock were meant to be a joke since the law proscribes that only adult humans of sound mind are capable of granting consent.

God created sex, and God created pleasure, but since us humans have free will, last time I checked, exactly how we all get from point A to point B is not something that society or the government should monitor, regulate, or control, and if God has a problem with it, we either will or will not have he__ to pay in the end, depending if the athiests were right or not.

We cannot regulate if people do things below their dignity, and scandal, per-se, tends to be a mixture of hatred, jealousy, and a misguided attempt for one group to impose their moral standards on another group.

The 'Sake of Human Dignity' does indeed grant rights to animals; it is fairly self-evident that animals feel pain and experience hunger, therefore animal cruelty laws forbid these things; it's not a vague moral construct, but specific actions that are allowed or forbidden.

Human dignity can and should be the basis of our laws, and we also expect that our judicial system helps to apply these laws fairly, but on their own, they are little more than the 'church lady' making a really sour face.

Re: "Human dignity can and should be the basis of our laws...."

I thought the basis for our laws was the US Constitution, which has its basis on the concept of individual liberty.

If the basis of the US Constitution is individual liberty, then how can states deny individuals the right to marry who they chose?

BTW our Canadian consitution isn't so individually based, but it was still used as the basis to allow gay marriage in Canada, as a prohibition on descrimination based on sexual orientation was already in the Charter of Rights which is a key part of our constituion.

Re: If the basis of the US Constitution is individual liberty, then how can states deny individuals the right to marry who they chose?

It's already established that states have a right to define parameters of what may or may not constitutes a marriage. That's not really debatable.

The question is whether or not those parameters (laws) are in conflict with either a granted power (a provision) contained within the US Constitution, or if they actually do violate a constitutionally protected right. I'd love to witness such a debate in front of our nine Supreme Court judges and possibly learn the answer to that question myself.

Moreover, a discussion regarding the the relationships of, and the differences between, the US Constitution and individual State Constitutions, is a discussion in and of itself.

The basis is surely the theory given in the Declaration of Independence (the U.S. Constitution itself does not give much theory), viz. God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which, I have been told, was very nearly "property"). This puts liberty second to life and has all the rights coming from God. The state does not grant rights, it merely recognises them and secures them (or should). The authors of the Declaration included Deists, not just Christians of a variety of denominations, but they had in common enough to recognise God as the author of, inter alia, individual liberty. Now if these rights are aspects of human dignity, as at least one constitution (the German) says, then perhaps human dignity is indeed the basis of the freedoms enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

Dne fo egassem

Re: The basis is surely the theory given in the Declaration of Independence (the U.S. Constitution itself does not give much theory), viz. God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which, I have been told, was very nearly "property"). This puts liberty second to life and has all the rights coming from God. The state does not grant rights, it merely recognizes them and secures them (or should). The authors of the Declaration included Deists, not just Christians of a variety of denominations, but they had in common enough to recognize God as the author of, inter alia, individual liberty. Now if these rights are aspects of human dignity, as at least one constitution (the German) says, then perhaps human dignity is indeed the basis of the freedoms enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

As you probably know, I'm a big-time Constitutionalist. I know, and agree with, what you said. An exception I might make, however, is that in the Constitution, the word "God" is not used. The word "Creator" is used instead. While in the eyes of Christians (and other faiths), God might be the Creator, in the eyes of others, "the Creator" does not always equal God. The "Creator", as referenced in the US Constitution, is called, "Nature's God", in the Declaration.

Point being, as you indicated, mortal man (or government) does not grant rights. They are instead naturally endowed upon a person by the "Creator", regardless of how one might define "the Creator". Government's role is to secure and protect them. (But government has actually become the biggest violator of them!)

I would love to have a discussion on the US Constitution. Maybe it would get some people around here to actually read it.

My initial reply was regarding the "human dignity" thing - it's pretty subjective. On the basis of "human dignity", for example, one person might be vehemently opposed to something like euthanasia, while another person is in favor of it for the same "dignity" reasons. We don't want government defining "human dignity", do we?

As you mentioned in your post:

"I would love to have a discussion on the US Constitution. Maybe it would get some people around here to actually read it."

Something to consider . . .

AV

"'Racism' should be maintained so that 'we can fight it'."

I guess that mean small pox should be maintained so doctors can learn how to treat it.

And we really do not know who created them. If they were all eliminated, the companies like McAfee and Symantec would go out of business.

It bothers me, as I translate to and from English, that there's this dialect of English, spoken now by at least two presidents, and by a number of corporate CEOs as well, which seems to do its best to communicate as little as possible, while using the first person pronouns often as possible - I am not sure about the latter, I haven't been able to study the phenomenon as much as required, because it numbs the brain, even with minor exposure.
I could understand it if it were an objective-bias speech; one where the speaker goes out of the speaker's way to underline which parts of speech are statements of perceived fact, and which are statements of personally held opinion... there would be some merit to that, I feel. In stead I see this "I can definitely say that we can now clearly state that it is my stated opinion that fire burns!"
I first thought it was all just a Dubya idiolect (that term does not [always] mean idiot's dialect, but rather idiosyncratic speech pattern), but now I see it everywhere.

The president of the US, or a CEO, has a number of roles.

The President of the US, for example, is the leader of the government, the most important member of his partisan political party, the head of the armed forces, a husband/wife, father/mother etc. Through his speech and his tone, he has to be clear who is speaking for, himself, his government, his country,his military, his family, his political party.

But look at the example given above: "I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think X"... merely separating I-as-a-person and I-as-the-figurehead-of-Y would have been satisfied by "I have come to the conclusion that X", or the much shorter "I now feel that X".
So I think there's something else going on.
You could be on to something though - it would be fun at least to interpret the different 1.person references as referring to different aspects of the presidential person: The first can be the human person, the second can be the leader of the administration, the third can be the representative of party leadership and the last can be the Commander In Chief...
Compare, if they were different people: "I've just concluded that for John, personally it is important for Bob to go ahead and affirm that Jaqueline thinks X" Schizophrenia, the game of Kings!

They're trying to sound impressive while saying as little of substance as possible. Common US English descriptions include 'smoke and mirrors' and 'house of cards'. Don't you have the joke about how to tell when a politician is lying?

It's just gay marriage, get over it.

Why not tackle a real issue like universal healthcare or the massive national debt.