Let's be clear about what Obama's position on gay marriage is

This is what he said in Rick Warren's Saddleback church at the beginning of his campaign as the Democratic presidential nominee, in his first face-off with John McCain:



He's not saying that he's unsure if America is ready for it, or even whether he's personally ready for it as, say, a social change.

He's letting the folks in Rick Warren's megachurch know that he, like them, thinks that gay marriage is against the will of the blessed creator of the universe.

I'm not sure how you could ever budge from a position like that, how you could say that "times have changed" or some such measure of cultural evolution.

For better or worse, the President Elect is not shy about injecting religion into politics. As an atheist and firm believer in the separation of church and state, I think it's worse, but YMMV.

___

* CNN's transcript is slightly different ("I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me -- for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."). Doesn't change the meaning, but the wording above was how I scribed it real-time.

Obama goes on to say he doesn't support an amendment that says that. So, though gay marriage is against the wishes of God Almighty, Obama doesn't want an amendment that bans it outright.

And I'm not afraid to say it.

he's a very weak man politically.

Neither are exactly admirable traits for a President.

I SAID THAT SHIT IN JOHANNESBURG!

Catholics don't jive on divorce.

But that doesn't mean that I think that divorce should be illegal. It is just not an option for me.

So allow gays to marry. Some church will accept it. Respect that wisdom tradition's point of view.

There are many churches that marry gay couples now. They will continue to marry them.

There are many churches that don't marry gay couples now. They will continue to refuse to do so.

We recently passed a resolution allowing our rabbis to perform gay commitment ceremonies (and I believe marriages where they are legal). And yet they had Rick Warren speak at their last biennial conference. So that's why I think comparing him to a Nazi or KKK is a little over the top...if he were really a hate-monger on the fringes of society I doubt the Reform Movement would have given him a platform.

do not object to inviting him to speak. Not, however, to give the invocation at the inauguration. The first kind of invitation is free speech, which I would defend to my last breath. The second is an honor, which I would oppose to my last breath.

as long as you don'tsleep with anyone else or purport to re-marry, either of which would be adultery. The Church then views the divorce as purely an arrangement as to property. At least, that is how I understand it. But, yes, the marriage bond is unbreakable, despite the civil divorce. However, if you are connected, like a Kennedy, you may be able to get an annulment.

it can be done if you are hardcore..

One of the Kennedy's did that, and I was very confused. He had kids, so wouldn't that technically make the kids illegitimate, since they would have been born out of wedlock?

and married his mistress and his first wife wasn't even Catholic. Oy!

my mom married my step dad (ex-priest who got a dispensation from the church) after her marriage to my dad was annulled. Does the Catholic church consider me a bastard now? Not that I care for my sense of self worth (I don't practice Catholicism anymore) but just curiosity.

:shrug:

not voting at all would have only helped elect McCain; and that was just not acceptable to me. (That was the Democratic mindset that once put Dick Nixon in the Oval Office.) As to most things, I do agree with Barack. This, however, is a fundamental difference between us. I want to believe that he just says that crap to get elected and he can be moved, especially during his seond term. I hope to God that is so.

Don't be afraid to say it, because it's the truth.

even though he may not be bigoted towards gay people on other issues. How would he like it if I said that, according to my religion and my upbringing, marriage is only valid between members of the same race? I think he might have to say the same thing about me.

His personal opinion is just that....personal. Until we live in the 1984 world, one's personal opinions are to cherished. And can be different, very different, from others.

But it doesn't matter what his personal opinion is. The Prez doesn't wave a magic wand and give gay marriage rights out. All that matters is that the Prez is against a constitutional amendment banning it, so that he will veto such a bill when it gets to his desk. Obama is against such an amendment, and would veto it.

he blurs the line between the two.

The fundamentalists do it on purpose, as a ploy to keep people opposed to the concept.

The question is why Obama does this.

Deliberately? Or because he hasn't thought it through?

I don't know.

But you cannot be against civil marriage (the piece of paper you get from the courthouse) and justify it on religious grounds. It is utterly illogical.

with all the exact rights/privileges that come with "marriage."

I'm more concerned with the rights and privileges that come with that piece of paper than the word printed at the top of that paper.

but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing why, when asked about civil same sex marriage, he gives a religious reason for opposing it.

Separate = "inherently unequal"

It's just a word. If the exact same rights come with a different word printed on the piece of paper granting those rights, is that not a step forward and better than no rights at all?

And since we all knew his stand on this before the election why is it such a big deal now?

It's just a word.

* IIRC, Obama was very specific in his campaign that words matter. Of course words matter, especially when they confer social standing.*

If the exact same rights come with a different word printed on the piece of paper granting those rights, is that not a step forward and better than no rights at all?

* Sure, some rights would be better than no rights. Being kicked once a day is better than being kicked twice a day. Doesn't make it right.*

And since we all knew his stand on this before the election why is it such a big deal now?

* I've been clear where I stand on this for some time, and I'm disappointed that none of the "major" candidates had a truly progressive position on it. Obama's religious position made him particularly disappointing. It's a big deal now because finally the prevailing gag order against questioning Obama seems to have been (temporarily?) lifted right now, about this topic in particular, in the wake of Prop 8 and the Warren announcement).*

I said: "If the exact same rights come with a different word printed on the piece of paper granting those rights, is that not a step forward and better than no rights at all?"

You said: "Sure, some rights would be better than no rights. Being kicked once a day is better than being kicked twice a day. Doesn't make it right."

I've highlighted this apparent miscommunication in bold. If the "union," "marriage," "partnership" or whatever one calls it establishes the exact same rights, is what it is ultimately labeled as really that important so as to accept nothing at all?

"better than no rights at all," which suggests something less than a full loaf. And given the cachet of marriage, and the explicit channeling into a newfangled second tier, "oh, you're gay, so I'll give you one of these instead" is clearly separate and unequal.

getting married at all, gay or hetero, nor would people be running to the polls to enact state constitutional amendments against it. It says to gays "You are not worthy to have to what heteros have," much as the "colored" sign on the water fountain reminded everyone that African Americans were not worthy to use what whites used. "What's the difference? It's the same water." Riiiight. On the other hand, if it is truly just a word, what is the hang up giving it to anyone who wants it?

Why on earth would you even post something like that when it so obviously is not true?

Let me try it this way: It's not about water fountains and it's not about words. It's about RIGHTS.

The rights that come with the piece of paper that declares a couple has entered into a legal contract is called "marriage."

"Marriage" is a legal contract between two people that grants them certain rights and benefits unavailable to those who do not possess this piece of paper/contract entitled "marriage."

So what are we fighting for? Those rights or that word?

If we get the rights ("civil union") but not the word ("marriage"), do we say 'No, no, not good enough, it's the rights and the word or nothing at all!'

Or do we concentrate on getting the rights first and then worry about getting the word?

read it again, but this time, thoughtfully.

BTW, are you of the view that Kike and nigger are also just words? How about "endowed by their creator with inalienable rights?" Just words? Obama said they weren't just words. Do you have the right to a marriage? If so, what did you do that made you so worthy of that word and Barney Frank so unworthy of it?

If that is the case, then why can't gays do it?

Married. If we were told we couldn't get married because it wasn't in a church, and that we had to substitute something without the cachet of marriage, we'd have felt like second-class citizens in a society that formally disrespected us.

I'm proud to live in a state that doesn't treat gays that way.

get civil unioned.

Melissa, will you civil union me?

Civil union bells are breaking up that old gang of mine.

Yeah, you're right. It stinks to high heaven--and I mean that literally-- for GOVERNMENT to tell American human beings that they are so repugnant to GOVERNMENT that GOVERNMENT has to deny them the right to a friggin word like "marriage" with the decent people who really deserve to use that word.

Now, that's how GOVERNMENT changes hearts and minds and prevents hates crimes like the murder of Matthew Shepherd and keeps gays teens from committing suicide or going nuts.

Just a word.

that blacks had to use instead of the ones for whites? Hey, they're equal, so why quibble?

I'm not arguing against gay marriage, I'm all for it. I'm just not all that hung up on what it's called.

As long as the same benefits to "marriage" are applied to "unions," as a gay man, I could live with it being called a "union" instead of a "marriage."

I see marriage as a piece of paper, a contract between two people from which certain rights and benefits are established. So if this contract is the same for everybody but just with a different name identifying said document, I feel that in lieu of nothing, it's an acceptable compromise for the time being.

I believe once gay people are allowed to enter into legal civil "unions," it won't be that long before we are allowed to use the word "marriage" instead of "union."

You have to start somewhere.

fountain with the word "whites only" on it and denying gays the right to "marry?" When did any hetero "civil union?" It's "separate but equal" in another form. It says that one group is less human than the other. Don't know why you adamantly refuse to see that. (From your writing, I believe you have the ability to see it, so I must conclude you are blocking for some reason.)

I went to Ms. Pittypat's Porch (a restaurant) in Atlanta once. The wait staff were all African American men, dressed as "house negroes." (Incredibly, Disney World used to have something similar "aboard its Empress Lilly Steamboat.)

If they got paid as good a salary as anyone who worked there, did they have "equal employment rights?" ( Just a work uniform. Hey, they had a right to a job and equal salary. NO problem. Right?

Marriage is a basic human right that government may not deny it citizens. The SCOTUS has said so. ANY time you insist a group is not entitled to what the majority gets as a birthright, you are discriminating. Separate but equal is not equal. It's invidious discrimination. The SCOTUS has said so.

If you want to say, chill and let Obama appoint pro-gay rights justices to the SCOTUS, you'd be on a lot sounder ground than you are telling gays what they should want. Because they should not want to be treated as less than anyone else. That's shameful.

This seems the most plausible scenario:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8004820&mesg_id=8017574

As I explain here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8016744&mesg_id=8017608

and here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8016744&mesg_id=8017530

First things first, both Gay and Straight couples can enter into Civil Unions in the States that have them. At the same time, both Gays and Straights can be married in at least Massachusetts, and possibly, in the very near future(months, at most) a couple of other states(hopefully).

So you are going to have two separate institutions for BOTH gay and straight couples, and when DOMA is overturned, hopefully soon, those same sex couples that are married will have their marriages recognized in all 50 states after the result of one(and most likely more), lawsuits. Civil Unions, at the moment, don't have that type of equality, even with DOMA gone. Each state would have to legislate its way into Civil Unions, and those that don't have Gay Marriage are going to have a same sex couple want to get married, and since the state, by Supreme Court jurisprudence, already recognizes them, but doesn't issue the licenses itself, they will have no legal standing to defend whatever law or constitutional amendment they have to forbid it, and it will be overturned.

It may not happen like this immediately, with the current Supreme Court, it seems unlikely, however, eventually, hopefully within a decade, it will happen, and a hell of a lot quicker than unequal Civil Unions will.

That's the other issue, right now Civil Unions are not, and cannot be recognized by the Federal Government, or other States, you will have to legislate that in every state and in the federal government itself. This is part of the reason you would have to basically reword every marriage law, duplicate and adapt it, as it were, so Civil Unions are given the same exact rights as marriages.

So, at least at first, you will have Marriages for all in some states, Civil Unions for all in some other states, and the rest will have Marriages for Straights only. So you'll have a patchwork of laws, regulations, and institutions, covering what is basically the same ground, as it were, legally.

Indeed, this is very similar to how things stand today, the difference is that no state recognizes out of state Civil Unions, or even Same Sex Marriages. If Obama keeps his promises, that will change soon, and it will lead to even more of a patchwork, and even more confusion.

Obama wants civil unions on the federal level. Does that not mean that a civil union performed in Kentucky would be as valid in Oregon? Or am I misunderstanding what 'federal' means?

I don't believe he opposes same-sex marriage, even if he doesn't support it. He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, and opposed Prop 8, and I believe has said that if any bill that tried to ban same-sex marriage came across his desk, he would veto it.

I have a sneaking suspicion (and it's my opinion only, mind) that he either supports gay marriage but can't say so directly because of political reasons, or that even if he doesn't support it, he doesn't oppose it either. Meaning that while not a vocal advocate for it for personal reasons, he opposes any attempt to ban it by law. In a way, it reminds me of something Kerry said during one of the debates in '04, when asked a question about abortion. He responded that while he, personally, is against abortion, he doesn't see it as his right to decide that everyone should be against abortion - paraphrased, of course.

to recognize or perform any civil unions, so a Civil Union law will have to pass in Kentucky first. Also, just because Kentucky may perform Civil Unions, doesn't mean it will recognize them from Oregon either.

I was mistaken, and I appreciate your correction - especially the manner in which you did so.

Now it's got me wondering how many states would pass Civil Union legislation... and how many would pass laws recognizing Civil Unions from other states.

than you are about the right to marry? Would you have told African Americans that they should be more oncerned about having a school for their kids than worrying about having an integrated school?

In Brown v. Board of Education, the SCOTUS held that separate but equal is NOT equal at all. In Loving v. Virginia, the SCOTUS held that marriage is a fundamental right that government had no business denying people.

So what "rights" do you claim to be so concerned about? Unequal rights, that speak vollumes that gays are too repugnant to even use the same word for their relationships as heteros do? Yeah, right.

say in order to get elected.

Why do you ask?

therefore you should have no objection to the result.

position of any politician. Nor does your vote bind you to silence in the face of immorality. As citizens, we don't simply have the right to criticize someone for whom we voted, we have the responsiblity to do so.

I like and admire Obama, but I do not idolize him. My vote does not mean all I can do from this point forward is either drool approvingly over Obama or remain silent. Some of the poeple here are posting bizarre things about what voting means. I cast a ballot. I did not sign up for a cult.

Some of the posts here are downright Un-Ameridan stuff, much like Cons posted when Bush got criticized. Only now, instead of "respect the office," it's "you voted for him, so sit down and shut up. Scary. And it's coming from Democrats, which is even scarier than when it comes from cons.

In other words his "position" on gay marriage is an artificial construction that has jack shit to do with whatever he personally believes.

Therefore, while he may oppose it personally, he does not believe there should be laws that restrict it.

says and does. So, if you have a pertinent quotation from Obama to support your comment, please post it. And if marriage is a religious thing that has no place in government, how come the only way to be legally married--or married in the eyes of--wait for it the LAW, as some people put it, is to obey whatever laws pertain to marriage licenses so that you can one from--wait for it--local GOVERNMENT.

It's not fun watching his contortions.

attempt to alienate as few people as possible. In other words, this former political candidate is a politician. He cannot even walk on water, no matter how many posters here are in denial about that.

He knows what he wants to accomplish, but it's not possible to elaborate on it without running into major contradictions.

Actually, I voted for Obama and I still like him but he does not nor ever has walked on water to me. I also like Biden but know he is not perfect, no politician is. I used to only before for civil unions, I thought what is wrong with that? The people who are against gay marriage will not be offended and gays can have something like a marriage. I really grew up in the last 4 years and realized I was wrong, civil unions are still discrimination though they may be the first step toward gay marriage being accepted in this country. Obama is also wrong on gay marriage but perhaps he, like many others in society, were raised to be against it for religious reasons. He needs to be educated about how wrong he is.

There is NO religious component necessary to ANYONE'S legal marriage. A religious ceremony is simply something the STATE has AGREED to recognize as fulfilling the LEGAL requirement.

IOW, the STATE allows "GOD" to enter the mix, not the other way around.
Thus, the STATE, the Body Politic, is capable of defining---or re-defining---the term "marriage" without a nod to religion.

Don't need a church for a legal divorce, do we?
(A Catholic can get a divorce like anyone else; it is whether or not that Catholic desires to remain in the Church, not in the state, that motivates his seeking an annulment---and don't get me started on THAT.)

and quite frankly it's disgusting.

What of it?

Personally, I think John Kerry wouldn't have been elected, regardless of whether gay marriage was an issue or not. But even the suggestion that he may have cost him a lot of votes.

When you've got 2/3 of people against it, and probably a lot them don't just disagree it they are downright appalled by the idea, it would be near impossible for anyone to get elected whilst saying they support gay marriage.


I'm not saying its right, but I understand why he would say that even if he didn't really feel that way.

As always.