After Hours

General discussion


Marriage for Same-Sex Couples - Wow

By drowningnotwaving ·
Tags: Off Topic
{ 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?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

NOT marriage, maybe a domestic partnership or civil union but not marriage

by mjd420nova In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Cou ...

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.

Collapse -

It's not necessary, but I don't see the harm, either.

by AnsuGisalas In reply to NOT marriage, maybe a dom ...

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.

Collapse -

It is so much more than that

by JamesRL In reply to NOT marriage, maybe a dom ...

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.

Collapse -

Excellent post

by cmiller5400 In reply to It is so much more than t ...

I couldn't have said it any better.

Collapse -


by PurpleSkys In reply to It is so much more than t ...

And I totally resemble that remark. I have friends that are of different faiths and gay friends as well. I love them all as the people they are and I respect their beliefs.

Collapse -

I applaud President Obama

by AV . In reply to Marriage for Same-Sex Cou ...

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.


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

Collapse -

One might think that gushy assessment came from Chris Matthews

by maxwell edison In reply to I applaud President Obama

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.

Collapse -

And, of course...

by NickNielsen In reply to One might think that gush ...

...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.

Collapse -

And also, of course, I acknowledge that . . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to And, of course...

.... 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.

Collapse -

The tone of your post

by NickNielsen In reply to And also, of course, I ac ...

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?

Related Discussions

Related Forums