Obama reminds me a little bit of Richard Russell Jr., the longtime Senator from Georgia who -- as historian Robert Caro has noted -- cultivated a reputation as a thoughtful, tolerant politician even as he defended inequality and segregation for decades. Obama gave a wonderfully Russellian defense of Warren on Thursday at a press conference. Americans, he said, need to "come together" even when they disagree on social issues. "That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about," he said. Russell would often use the same tactic to deflect criticism of his civil rights record. It was a distraction, Russell said, from the important business of the day uniting all Americans. Obama also said today that he is a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays, which is -- given his opposition to equal marriage rights -- simply a lie. It recalls the time Russell said, "I'm as interested in the Negro people of my state as anyone in the Senate. I love them."Another, maybe more cliche, parallel is Kennedy. Had I been alive in the early 60s and heard JFK refer to himself as a "fierce advocate for equality" for blacks, I'd have grabbed the Molotov cocktail, and gone straight H. Rap Brown. Part of me shrinks at calling the man a bigot, but on its face, I think John is right. The case against gay marriage, is for my money, a bigot's case. The appeal to history is false, in the first, for the reason that all appeals to history are false. For thousands of years the dominant form of government in the world was a dictatorship--and then we "redefined government" to make democracy. Was that wrong? But more than that it's false on the the actual facts--historically, marriage has not always been one man, one woman. It's been one man and fifty women. It's been one man and--what we would consider today--one child. One man and five children. One woman and five men. And so on...
The first one didn't DO anything to help, and nor would the second one.
Obama's position is purely pragmatic; by saying he supports civil unions, it helps build a legal base. Then by opposing anti-marriage amendments on constitutional grounds, it leaves time and demographics to resolve this state by state.
I really don't see what is expected here: to use up all the political capital in order to pass acts which will be repealed the second a Republican president and majority returns?
And the rhetoric is getting somewhat out of hand here. Calling people 'evil' because they disagree on this matter starts to make you sound as shrill as some anti-abortionists frankly.
Does the push for gay marriage supersede the push for health care reform? Or improving access to money for tertiary education? Or EFCA? Obama's only got so much political capital to work with, and it's not a bad move to pick some up by throwing a bone to Warren, as that can help us get the things we need right now.
We're in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, and we still have Republican Senators who plan to stonewall like it's their job. Saxby Chambliss won reelection in Georgia on a platform of stopping Obama from doing anything at all. Considering that some of the proposed reforms are quite contentious, and will require bipartisan support, Obama needs to get everyone behind him. The higher his approval ratings, the easier this will be to do, as legislators will feel pressure to get behind him. Warren helps make a tent a bit bigger on these bread and butter issues, gets a bit more support behind Obama and increases the likelihood of getting this stuff done. We already know this legislation is going to be close, and we need every vote in the Senate that we can get.
Gay rights are very important to me, but not as important as getting us out of the hole we're in right now. It's a battle that we're destined to win from a demographics standpoint, it's only a matter of time. I know that offers little solace to those in California whose marriages may be voided, but it's the truth. And, at the end of the day, keeping people fed, clothed, and housed is a higher priority than guaranteeing a group the right to marry.
]]>Yeah, probably true. Better word choice. In fairness, I was specifically referring to people who are now pushing for a kind of retroactive divorce in Cali. But still, I should avoid words like "evil."
]]>This is a little bit of a cop-out, because it leaves out the most obvious point: as a politician, Obama's first priority is to get elected. His position on gay marriage seems entirely political from that perspective, and somewhat self-serving.
Warren just pours salt on the wound. I don't think Warren is a strategic pawn in the political mechanism needed to build consensus or get things done. Consensus on what? To accomplish what? And how exactly does Warren help Obama "expand the Democratic Brand?"
How about, Obama's just wrong on this, and let's drop the caveats.
]]>Obama, like many Dems, is just a coward on this issue, but thankfully that cowardice is now one in which full civil unions are supported not just "don't ask don't tell" (i.e. Clinton).
So, call Obama wrong, a coward, or whatever but if you think we're going to pick up the votes and change the minds we must for equality by equating those who are just one step away from full marriage (i.e. civil unions) with racist and active segregationist you have to be beyond stupid.
]]>Also, it seems that some people are so anxious to call Barack out on his shit that they don't even wait for him to shit before they start yelling hyprocrite.
Maybe I should back away from my keyboard now. Reading this morning's blog was not the best way to start my day. (But, I'll be back with my coffee to read your blog tomorrow morning!)
]]>If I am against gay marriage on the basis of religion or moral sensibility does that make me a bigot?
If that is so then the vast vast vast majority of the world and the majority of America are bigots.
Warren's view like it or not represents the majority of Americans.
To be honest I have been reading this blog and i had expected a more sophisticated argument from Coates. Even Andrew Sullivan who has a very personal stake in this issue has a more nuanced and reasoned understanding of what the warren choice is all about.
the truth of the matter is that warren is a good man who from my view has dedicated his life to help and ease the suffering of others. in no sense of the word does he qualify as a bigot. neither does obama. neither does me.
one things that really irks me to the depths of my soul is the bullshit argument comparing the fight for gay marriage to the civil rights movement. I am mixed race and i'm now living in the Bahamas. the heart of the civil rights struggle was the truth that non-whites were equal as humans to whites. that struggle was paid for and endured with blood, humiliation and centuries of disadvantage. where the gay rights movement is now is not about whether they are full humans or whether the society at large is condoning their brutalization its just whether or not when they get married if the state will call it marriage or a civil union. of course their fight is a worthy and important one. in America people can and should fight for what they believe. but just because a person believes strongly that gay marriage (or even the lifestyle) is wrong does not make them a bigot. its up to gays to show through reasonable debate and example that people holding such views are wrong. that is the way ahead not the tossing of the word bigot around when it applies to the majority of the entire fucking country.
]]>Thanks for reading and responding. I'd ask you expand on your religious reasons for opposing gay marriage. I'd also ask you whether you that others, who don't share your interpretations, should be subject to them via the whims of the state.
Sorry, if I came off a bit harsh. As I said, "evil" was probably too much.
]]>This whole Obama is a bigot when in fact he has already worked to help pass LGBT legislation long before he was on the campaign trail and has like an 80+ percentage lifetime ranking by the HRC to me is ridiculous. Not only that its ignorant of the facts and the kind of thing that doesn't help in any material way.
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.
Obama scores 89% by the HRC on gay rights
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 HRC scores as follows:
.
0% - 20%: opposes gay rights (approx. 207 members)
20% - 70%: mixed record on gay rights (approx. 84 members)
70%-100%: supports gay rights (approx. 177 members)
About the HRC (from their website, www.hrc.org):
The Human Rights Campaign represents a grassroots force of more than 700,000 members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, HRC envisions an America where GLBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
.
Ever since its founding in 1980, HRC has led the way in promoting fairness for GLBT Americans. HRC is a bipartisan organization that works to advance equality based on sexual orientation and gender expression and identity.
"the heart of the civil rights struggle was the truth that non-whites were equal as humans to whites. that struggle was paid for and endured with blood, humiliation and centuries of disadvantage. where the gay rights movement is now is not about whether they are full humans or whether the society at large is condoning their brutalization its just whether or not when they get married if the state will call it marriage or a civil union.
The gay rights movement is about much more than marriage equality, and gays have been brutalized, marginalized and killed, in case you haven't noticed. Whatever, I guess I don't have to understand it, and as a white chick, maybe I just can't. But please don't minimize the oppression our gay brothers and sisters have endured.
]]>Warren thinks that I, because I would like to live openly as who I am, am the equivalent of a pedophile. He thinks I need to suppress one of the most vital parts of myself in order to be called a moral or legitimate person. That's not a single "issue," that's not a question of terminology. That's the kind of rhetoric that messes up lives, splits families, drives kids to suicide. Really. It is. However kinder and gentler it seems than what is coming from Dobson etc., it doesn't place us solely in the realm of civil political discourse.
Now, do I understand that global warming and the economy are "higher priorities?" Sure. Do I really think that Warren is the same as the KKK? No. I'm not going to call someone evil just because they get precious about wording when I want to get married too...I don't really get it, but whatever. But know that it's not just about that. Understand why and how much this sucks before brushing it off.
For what it's worth, my thoughts on gay marriage as "the civil rights issue of our day" are here:
http://bleakonomy.blogspot.com/2008/12/equivalent-yes-no-who-cares.html
Do you honestly believe that Obama feels the same as Warren?
]]>Obama is very wrong on this issue, and his decision to invite a bigot to address our nation will haunt him the rest of his life.
Obama should know better.
]]>Do you realize how many laws are on the books right now that refer to "marriage"? Re-writing all of those laws to include "civil unions" is a daunting task. Civil union couples would be forced to hire and pay for lawyers to fill in those gaps in the law. Thus the fight for the word "marriage". It's just a word, but words mean something when it comes to the law...
]]>where the gay rights movement is now is not about whether they are full humans or whether the society at large is condoning their brutalization its just whether or not when they get married if the state will call it marriage or a civil union.
That's not really true -- most of the ballot initiatives over the past few years have stripped all legal equivalents of marriage from same-sex couples (just google "marriage or its legal equivalent" and get a whole lot of examples from all over the country). This really isn't about terminology -- it's about the validity of gay and lesbian couples, and therefore about the validity of gays and lesbians, primarily, as human beings.
one things that really irks me to the depths of my soul is the bullshit argument comparing the fight for gay marriage to the civil rights movement.
Apples and oranges -- no fight over a single bill or issue is comparable to an entire movement. "You want to compare which seat you get on a bus to the entire women's suffrage movement? You're going to get where you're going no matter where you sit!" Any movement can look petty or unimportant if you look at a single flash-point issue in isolation. The fair comparison is between the LGBT rights movement as a whole and other civil rights movements in the US.
And sgwhiteinfla: your analysis is valid, IMHO, only if the law recognizes only "civil union" for all couples, including heterosexual couples. If it's just a matter of terminology, none of us married (sorry, legally partnered) breeders should have a problem with it.
]]>how we behave, what we believe and the entire structure of society is build on "social norms" which are refined and cemented around religious beliefs and/or social customs.
the slavery of Blacks in huge numbers(by the western world) and the corresponding attitude at the time (by many in the western world) that they were sub human was not an "ancient" social development. I would say that that attitude emerged around the 1500's and is now in the process of completely fading away (hopefully Africa can get its shit together in this century).
on the other hand the idea of gay marriage has historically been an anathema. it still is. this view point is enshrouded in the major religions and the "traditional" morality of the entire world. therefore, the opposition to gay marriage is not necessarily the operation of the "whims" of the state.
however, the reality is that "social norms": wax and wane and also evolve on many issues. the age of marriage has been rising around the world. and now in the western world common place marriages of just a century ago would now be pedophilia. the punishments for crimes have evolved (less brutal). polygamy is dying out in the vast majority of the world. incest has been outlawed. just centuries ago incest was a ok throughout the majority of the world.
the overall point is that i believe gay marriage is on the cusp of being legally and morally "legitimised" in the western world. however, the current "traditional" opposition to gay marriage does not make one a bigot.
truth be told, in 200 years marriage on the whole might be finished, there might be free love and breeding centers.
some of the more vocal advocates for gay marriage need to realise (as andrew sullivan has done) that making lots of noise in the corner and demonising their detractors is not the smartest way for them to fight their fight.
Of course I don't. And I don't actually wish, at this point, for Warren to be "removed" from the ceremony or whatever...at this point I understand that that would do more harm than good.
But Warren's church has an active ex-gay ministry and does not allow gays to be members. What he has said makes it clear that he does not think we have a right to exist. I don't have to think that Obama shares these beliefs to note that it really sucks that that kind of stuff is not enough to push you beyond the pale of what is acceptable for this kind of situation. To me, that's more than disagreeing over wording on the marriage question. A lot more.
And for the record, it doesn't mean that I don't think Obama should "sit down" with Warren (whatever that means) in the future. But as long as we're just in the realm of the symbolism...the symbolism sucks. And for more reasons than terminology.
]]>As the text above points out, there are many cultures throughout history (and present in the world today)that accept(ed) the marriage of what we'd call children. Still, our society restricts the right of marriage to non-children. Are we saying that children are sub-human? No - but they do not have the right to marriage until the state expressly gives them the right. I know the reasoning is different, but it's still an instance where the "right" is restricted. We also restrict the right to polygamous marriage and incestous marriage, for reasons which are just as valid as the restriction on homosexual marriage. Frankly, I find that a little hypocritical - we don't even allow incestuous relationships the right to civil union, even if they promise not to have kids.
]]>But I doubt it, since it's always harder to fight for partial victories scrabbled out of compromise which actually help individuals, than to indulge in an all or nothing position for an ideal.
]]>Rick Warren gives plenty of folks good feelings. They just happened to all be on the Religious Right.
]]>Its a Biblical perspective, and no more complicated than that.
As far as yer second sentence goes, that knife cuts both ways.
This is all cutting off the nose to spite the face, something the progressives (and I number myself as one of them in every possible way) are excellent at. We've finally got an amazing president who has flaws and who does things we don't like, and all we can do is whine before he's even taken the oath.
]]>Of course, in the past the legal contract was more between the fathers of the bride and groom, or at least the groom and the father of the bride, than between the bride and groom themselves. If you see marriage as a property arrangement, there's no reason to limit it by age much -- if you can sell a cow, why not sell a calf? But this society doesn't see marriage that way, because...marriage is different all over the world, and is always changing.
Plus, the age-bar too marriage is temporary -- when you get old enough, you can get married. Doesn't work that way for same-sex marriages.
Again, if it's all about terminology, let's erase "marriage" from all laws and leave that word to the churches. The law can use "civil legal partner" for everyone, and we can stop all the useless fighting.
]]>Ugh. We don't allow incestuous and polygamous marriages so, for example, fathers can't marry and rape their daughters. There's nothing sick or demented about gay people wanting marry. Period.
]]>If homosexuality something you're born with, then to be against it is bigotry, just like those who are racist and sexist. They hate the entire person because of some quality that they are born with, and to hate a gay person for being gay falls into that category.
If it's a lifestyle choice, then to be against it is just a difference of opinion, like being against abortion or gun control.
As far as Obama goes, I don't think this country is in a place where the President can say, "I'm pro gay-marriage." We don't live in that world yet. What the guy personally believes and what he will publicly say are likely to be two different things. Only time will tell by his behavior what he really thinks. My guess is that by choosing Warren to participate in the inauguration, he's just trying to bridge differences. He's not coming out of the closet as a hidden Republican or anything.
]]>This is a civil rights issue because we are talking about treating an entire sub-group of the populous differently than the majority. The constitution strictly forbids laws (including state laws) which create a sub-culture with fewer rights (14th amendment, see below). We are all equal in the eyes of the law.
Now, that said, it is very appropriate for gays to be highly offended by Mr. Obama's choice of person to read the invocation. To pander to the very group that is actively trying to destroy equality in America is simple the wrong message. If he wants to bring people together, pick someone who is not trying to actively discriminate against others who have done nothing illegal or wrong.
And one final opinion on religion. You are free to practice whatever religion you want. You are free not to practice any religion. You are NOT FREE, however, to infringe upon in any way the rights of another US citizen. This issue is a perfect example of why there should be separation of church and state.
--
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Barack has never stood in the way of pro gay legislation anywhere. If pro gay legislation, be it gay marriage, civil unions, or otherwise came across his desk, I have no expectation whatsoever that he would veto it.
And it's not just, "not standing in the way". He's said he'd repeal DOMA and DADT. As those would be executive orders, any political fallout would be his alone. At this point I see no reason why we shouldn't expect to follow through on his word on these things.
Marriage is basically a social construct with no intrinsic meaning other than that which is given to it by the society which endorses it. Barack has said that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. That to me doesn't make him a bigot, especially given his views and stated postions on gays and gay rights outside of this narrow issue, but instead a man with a speficic understanding of what marriage is or should be. But heck, if not having the same defintion of marriage as yours makes him a bigot independent of everything else he does, then I guess welcome to a brave new world where being a bigot aint so bad...
]]>Lorran: so you're saying that because a lot of people have been against something for a long time, that automatically makes it immoral and makes a legalized prohibition on it necessary? Really?
]]>Comparing polygamy to incest isn't much better than comparing gay marriage to pedophilia.
]]>Marriage, or civil union, is a contractual matter between two people that creates a family connection of a type that doesn't exist before. The relationship creates various rights, such as inheritance in the case of someone who dies inestate, and next-of-kin medical decision-making rights when one party is incapacitated.
The problems with rights generally come when relationships break down, if everyone is getting along with each other that is all hunky-dory and the state has no need to get involved, but when say, a person is unconscious, and his parents favour one set of medical actions, and his wife another, this is when the state gets involved and makes others subject to its whims. The alternative appears to be that the party with the most firepower makes the others subject to its whims, which is not something we want happening in the middle of an ICU.
Another debate is: who has the right to enter the country? On that issue there is a balance between those who don't want open borders but instead who want to control demographic change, and those who want to be able to live with the foreigner they've fallen in love with. Some decision-making process has to be followed, and the whims of the state, at least in a democracy, have a lot of validity.
One noticable difficulty with marriage is that it is a contract, not a physical event, like birth or death or a genetic relationship. Therefore it is possible for two parties to dispute about the existance of a family tie and this matter be unable to be resolved factually (imagine that a rich old widower hires a live-in housekeeper. Eventually he dies of natural causes. The next day the housekeeper claims they were secretly married, and she is entitled to half of his inheritance. The man's children claim she's lying to get the money. No DNA testing will tell the courts the right answer. Requiring marriages to be registered and to have two witnesses and so forth does not entirely prevent fraud, but it helps courts make a decision).
The details of tax law are a point of considerable political uncertainty. Tax law relating to marriage inherently faces a conflict between the desire to tax individuals based on their income, and society's recognition that marriage forms a special form of family tie and thus couple's income is shared. There's no one answer that everyone accepts as fair (the USA has a marriage exemption that is often attacked as unfair to single couples, NZ has no marriage exemption and that is often attacked as unfair to married couples). So this is also a place for the whims of the state.
Similar to tax we have the rule that you cannot be forced to testify against your spouse - this is a reflection of the general view of society that marriage forms a special unit. But of course the state also has an interest in getting criminal convictions. A situation in which the state had no hand in regulating who could marry would likely lead to all members of criminal gangs "marrying" each other.
The rights of marriage and who gets to marry is inherently political. This is not an argument against gay marriage, but it is why marriages should be subject to the whims of the state.
]]>But you must be aware that there's something called "back stage" when someone is booking an act for an event. Like booking Rick for an inaugural appearance.
When the Obama inaugural campaign got on the phone with Rick Warren's publicists-bookers, what do you think the deal points were?
I can guess what a biggie was, I'll tell you who won. The deal point: Who gets the final edit on his speech?
Who won? Of course, The Obama side. Rick Warren's job every day is hustling sales of self-help books. He needs every tv appearance possible to push product. Even by just appearing and saying his name. Sales slip down too far, that's the end of Rick and the publishing world. And people are buying less books!
His publisher would have had his head if he didn't take this opportunity to promote himself to a national audience. Big pressure on an print-product-(and all the ancillaries) generator.
Now when the Obama campaign got the first draft of his speech there were just-a-few-tiny-tweaks that we're making before we announce your appearance.
And you smart people can imagine what those tweaks were:
NO mention of gay anything. No mention of anything to do with marriage. Especially forbidden "Jesus" and "Jesus Christ." A generic "God" is OK, but no more than twice. No political stands. Bland God-mush. You can mention other religions, but only in a string. No particular attention called to any of them, not even to praise.
And Rick, You go rogue on this on air and Oprah gets a call. And so does your publisher. Now let's see that outline of your speech again. And yes, it's STILL an outline. Go back to your writers and tell them to learn about taking notes.
See if I'm right: Listen to Rick Warren's blessing or invocation or convocation or whatever it is. If I'm right, you'll see the subtle beginnings of the new, neutered Rick Warren. It won't be dramatic, but just watch him during the Obama administration. I say his speech will show us how short or long a leash he is being issued. So, can't we be petty and vengeful enough to enjoy this sight? Listen to his speech and see if I'm right. And following that, while Obama is president, you won't hear any of that hate speech from Rick Warren. He doesn't want a powerful enemy and he's got to keep the book sales up.
Don't confuse this with religion.
Obama has read the mood correctly. This is a time to consolidate equal opportunity in terms of legal and economic rights and support civil unions. It would actually make these rights less secure and potentially increase the divide between the mainstream and gays by making the wedge issue of marriage the central issue.
As a gay man, the gay activists trying to stir up outrage are simply utilizing a wedge issue to stay relevant. Very sad.
]]>But Obama's job, isn't my job. I just don't think it's my role to make him as comfortable as possible.
I'm not all that interested in what's inside of Obama's heart. I will likely never have to deal with him on a personal level. What does have an effect on me, every day, is the Presidency and the Federal Government. The institutions of power in this country, including the Presidency, need to be changed, if not revolutionized. That will happen only with a massive, oppositional movement. The fact that I voted and volunteered for the soon-to-be-occupant of the Oval Office is irrelevant to that mission.
]]>To my knowledge, neither the US Constitution nor the Constitution of the State of California gives anyone the "right" to marry. States recognize marriages and issue marriage certificates based on the individual needs of that state. 30 states chose to define marriage as between a man and a woman in 2008, yet many of these states recognize the legal validity of civil unions.
As an African-American who voted for Proposition 8, I had to endure "Hollywood-pimping" of all the ethnic celebrity endorsements of the No on 8, all the way up to election day. I nearly lost my mind when Samuel L. Jackson, who obviously lived through the 1960s, joined this campaign. I too am sick of comparing the struggle of gays with my own. Sorry, but if you pretend to be straight, no one will know you're gay, but I can't hide my skin color.
California civil unions had legally earned the same rights as married couples long before the passage of Prop 8, so is all of this a legal issue or a social matter?
]]>I understand that other people read the order and said that bigot Warren in giving the invocation that sucks. That does suck. This is where we part. If I was leading the gay movement, then I would have elevated Lowry's position and talked him up so he could get on all the cable news shows and talked about how not all black people are not against gay civil rights. This helps you in three ways. You build a bridge to black people after making them the reason for the failure of Prop 8. Also, you let the right wingnuts go after Warren for supporting Obama. Finally, you build a bridge to moderate evangelicals. But that's just me.
I have this same problem with other liberal causes, especially black ones. Like the NAACP last week and their issue with no black folks on TV. First, there were few blacks on TV when I was growing. What did my parents do? They bought books about black people and made me read them. The NAACP needs to be telling black parents to turn off the TV and go the library first off. Second, if you want to change what's on TV, why not get media companies to 1)create mentoring programs for writers and producers of color, 2)recruit at HBCUs, 3)create TV and film classes for inner city and rural youths, 4)create a film program at an HBCU. To me these activities get you closer to your goal than a boycott no one is going to support.
I maybe wrong, but that's just my 2 cents.
]]>Yes. If you support fewer rights for your neighbor, you are a bigot.
It's a tough pill to swallow. If you against discriminate someone because you can't stomach who they sleep with inside their private walls, you sir, ARE a bigot.
I may not like you. I may not like black people because of my upbringing or my church or community feelings, but I MUST support and defend your equal rights as a US citizen and human being in order for this Union to work.
So yes sir, you are being a bigot. But attitudes can change easier than skin pigment.
]]>Multiple concurrent wives is a sinful in God's eyes as Homosexuality.
Homosexuality is condemned as an abomination to God in both the old and new testaments. The religious argument is simple. Allowing homosexual marriage (as opposed to civil unions) is saying that homosexual marriages are SANCTIFIED, and this is contrary to the express word and will of God.
Thus is it opposed - just as bigamy is illegal, murder, theft, perjury etc.
One simple straight forward question. What rights would gay couples miss out on in a civil union that they would have in a marriage?
I am not trying to pick on you but nobody seems to want to address my open question and you seem to be pretty passionate about gay marriage.
]]>"As far as yer second sentence goes, that knife cuts both ways."
The knife doesn't cut both ways. Gay marriage doesn't affect your life at all unless you're in one, whether you're for it or against it. Gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts several years ago, and Republicans suddenly thought they had a winning issue, as like most Americans, the citizens of our fine state were a bit skeptical of the whole thing at best. In the first year with full gay marriage in Massachusetts, when resistance was strong, conservatives failed to get the measure put to a ballot initiative. In the second year no one cared anymore. In polls conducted asking people their opinions on the subject, a large majority is either supportive or doesn't care. Nothing has changed. People's lives haven't been affected. You wouldn't even know that gay marriage existed here were it not for reading the newspaper.
If gay marriage involved religion at all, I might see your point. The fact of the matter is, however, it doesn't. It's a matter of the state providing a legal right to individuals. Anything less than providing that right is an infringement upon those individuals' civil liberties, and from a strictly pragmatic point of view, lowers the efficiency of the state.
Can you explain to me how gay marriage affects your life in any way? Because the lack thereof certainly affects the lives of gay couples.
]]>In both cases, you have an issue which, in practical terms, is inconsequential. The probability of any politician actually getting a law passed banning abortion is very close to zero, and even if they did, the actual number of abortions would drop only slightly, and then only in the ranks of the very poor. Meanwhile, the number of children who starve or die of infectious diseases each day around the world, roughly 20,000 by some estimates, would continue apace. (And the pro-lifers would remain as indifferent to that statistical reality as they have always been.)
On the other side, gay couples will continue to do what they do. And, because the general consensus philosophically is that civil unions (whatever else they may be called) should make no distinction based on gender, gay couples will continue to be entitled to equal rights under the law. The argument is over the word itself, 'marriage', only.
So nothing of substance is at issue here, superficially at least. Instead, this debate is based on spiritual arrogance and fascism: the self-indulgence by a few, of their most reptilian instincts to obliterate those who's beliefs are alien to them, people they do not know, but who they have deemed threatening In absentia. I couldn't care less what words either side uses to describe their spiritual disposition, but I will fight them both at every turn to prevent them from usurping the law in order to validate it.
]]>The end of this issue is a foregone conclusion. Demographics are such that the bigots are dieing off and being replaced by overwhelmingly open minded people. I'm sure that's cold comfort to people suffering now though...
c'est la vie.
]]>my favorite joke: what's the difference between a black boy and a gay boy (or girl)? the black doesn't need to tell his mother.
actually, being gay is worse than being black in america, even your family will possibly reject you. the attempt to make the comparison is nothing more than trying to get the "oh-so-moral" people in our world to understand that the homo struggle is no different, at root.
that you think it is, demonstrates nothing less than the fact that you are not homo yourself, rather, you are anti-homo.
because what's wrong with one group struggling for rights comparing themselves to another group that struggles for the same rights and respect?
it's really very simple. homos are sick and pathetic and have no place, morals tell us this is true. and comparing ourselves to the civil rights movement is also sick and perverted.
and off we all go to hell... see you there.
]]>Mr. Warren holds certain religious principles that I find hideous and a clear affront to Christianity. In fact, I view him as one of the most anti-Christian people in our society today. However, it is his fundamental right to hold those religious principals, however odious they might be. In fact, it is our obligation, as Americans, to fight and even die for his right to hold those religious principals. That’s what freedom of religion is all about.
Closely allied to freedom of religion is separation of church and state. Our founding fathers explicitly made separation of church and state a fundamental principal of American government. It is that principal that Rick Warren has egregiously violated. He has fought to legislate his religious principles into law. There is one and only one basis for outlawing same-sex marriages, and that is religion. I don’t care how a majority of voters, influenced by false arguments from people like Rick Warren, vote with regard to Proposition 8; in the end, it is a violation of one of the most fundamental values in American government. In addition, it is unconstitutional.
Rick Warren does have the right to hold his religious views; he does not have the right to compel me, through legislation, to live according to his view of religion. He also does not have the right to forbid my minister from performing same-sex marriages. I have a right to hold and act according to my religious views as long as they don’t cause injury to my fellow citizens.
Those who would argue that there is a historical basis for marriage being between a man and a women simply fail to look at and learn from history. Historically, dictatorship has been the predominate form of government. Are they ready to give up democracy for the more traditional form of government. Historically, marriages have been polygamous and often involving children. Are you ready to go with that historical tradition.
If civil unions are separate but equal (an argument that has never worked), why not just do away with the government’s involvement in marriage altogether. You know, in many European countries, you go to the government to obtain a civil marriage contract. Then, if you want, you go to church for a religious ceremony. If Mr. Warren feels that civil unions are so acceptable, why not just have everyone, all those who want same-sex unions and all those who prefer mixed-sex unions, go get a civil union. Then, those who chose to do so, can go have a marriage ceremony in Mr. Warren’s church.
What is so very wrong with Mr. Obama’s choice of Mr. Warren for the invocation is that Mr. Warren so clearly does not believe in and support fundamental American principles. Mr. Warren has the right to be what I clearly feel is an anti-Christ. But it is entirely wrong to put an anti-American on the inaugural dias.
]]>It has been the choice of a nation to elect a man to be their president, a choice made on many grounds like politics, morality, integrity, trust, etc. Everyone made a choice and everyone had a reason for this choice. If the whole nation entrusted this person, our new elected president, and we him the right to lead this great country, as a nation we should trust his desicion.
Obama never said he is not a believer... of a the great CREATOR. So, if he is a believer of God and believes in his blessing, it is Obama's choice to pick the person who should bless him.
I know it is politics and that in politics there is always hidden agenda and problably a PR campaign. But I believe this is not the case.
As a human beign, Obama does not have all the answers, and he is taking the biggest challenge and responsability of his life, and with that responsability our lives too... so I think we can cut him some slack. This is not about marriege and civil rights and gay civil unions. This is about a man, Obama, that is about to start a very hard job and needs all the help he can get... even from GOD.
]]>As a parent of a gay son I sincerely look forward to a time when "gay rights" represent "equal rights" in America.
The issue as to whether or not the right to marry as a civil union be extended to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation may not be resolved in my lifetime, at least the way anti-miscegenation laws corrected the right to inter-racial marriage in 1967.
My hope is that the national discussion raises enough awareness of this issue, that the voting public understands the full impact that denying rights to a fellow American has and, above all, that my son may realize full equality in his lifetime.
]]>Please quit it with the "oppression olympics" --- this DOES NOT help.
]]>Thanks so much for voting for Prop 8! Now my wife and I get to be in legal limbo. We're really looking forward to spending the holidays wondering whether we're still going to be married come this time next year!
It must make you feel really good to know that you helped make thousands of your fellow Californians miserable. I spent most of Friday in tears because I just couldn't fathom how someone could be mean-spirited enough to try to break apart two people who happen to love each other. You go!
]]>I wouldn't have chosen Warren, hell, I wouldn't have chosen any kind of religious person, because I think religion is a crock. That said, people can be angry until the sun don't sun, but until we get a consensus or Congress grows some balls just legalize marriage for all consenting adults, there is always going to be somebody suing to make sure gay marriages are nullified. The majority population did not have any role is enacting the civil rights act, it was Congress. So that's how it should be on this issue.
]]>When gay activists embraced a strategy to pursue "marriage" versus equal protection, they opened themselves to a mountain of resistance and, essentially, handed bigots their most viable weapon--tradition. This is akin to MLK marching for the explicit "right" for black men to marry white women (a bit of hyperbole, but only a bit) and expecting no resistance at the lunch counter.
When making a direct assault on a person's traditions, it's a bit unreasonable not to expect them to fight back. But this is where the whole "marriage" strategy runs amok. First, gay advocates blamed black people for passing Prop. 8 (ludicrous, statistically impossible). Second, they blame fundamentalist Christians for not protecting the sanctity of marriage according to their views (just silly, this is what fundamentalists do). And third, they slam (black) people sympathetic to their cause when they make attempts to reduce conflicts and expand understanding (tragic, when in a democracy, you can always use a little help). The strategy to reach out and embrace your enemy in order to gain influence is a quintessential civil rights strategy. Ask MLK. Ask Mandela. Ask Obama.
What we are witnessing here is an attempt to obfuscate the obvious—the attack on traditional marriage strategy is on the ropes. Once bound to such ideological traps, the so-called victims reject what is in their best interest. They become incapable of making distinctions--like the clear differences between Warren and Obama. Everyone is the enemy. It's marriage or nothing. In this pathological state, even equality under the law is suspect.
]]>I think evil is a perfectly good word to use, along with mean-spirited, petty, meddling, busybodies--and yes, bigots. The summary for someone who wants to deliberately hurt someone they don't know, though? Asshole.
That said, TNC...I want to thank you, because that bit I quoted is exactly how I've been feeling since Friday, when I discovered that Ken Fucking Starr had filed suit to destroy my marriage.
Funny, how people were all up in arms over the ad showing the Mormon missionaries coming into the lesbian couples home and tearing up their wedding license, because that's exactly what's happening to around 36,000 of us right now.
]]>Here's one for starters: immigration rights for gay bi-national couples. I am a Brit who has been in a relationship with my US boyfriend for eight years. If I were a woman, we would have been married years ago, I would have a green card, end of legal worries, end of story. Alas, I am a man, which means that, instead, we have spent several years and several thousand dollars derailing so many of our other ambitions just so I can stay employed with a company that will sponsor my green card application. We could of course move to the UK, but only by tearing my boyfriend away from his family. This dilemma does not exist for straight couples who want to marry.
And this illustrates the greater point that state civil union laws do not cross state lines. Yes, gays in California enjoy many rights that straight married couples enjoy. But if those CA gays move to Louisiana or even go on vacation to Oklahoma, bye bye civil union rights!
Really, Googling 'civil unions vs marriage' is not very difficult, so I don't understand the persistent ignorance on the differences between the two.
]]>This is so staggeringly obtuse the mind reels. Yeah, it's all about us queers destroying your wonderful tradition. As several here have articulately pointed out, marriage IS "equal protection." Civil unions aren't, which is why Connecticut approved same-sex marriage, and why New Jersey soon will do the same -- because civil unions are separate and uneqal, as the experience of civilly-united couples has made clear.
And as far as "handing" bigots a weapon -- our very existence affronts them. They're opposed to homosexuality in general terms and to all civil rights measures. And since when is it the responsibility of a stigmatized and oppressed group to not offend bigots?
Obama's selection of Warren is indefensible. This guy is a reactionary creep, religious nutjob and a bigot. It's only because he's trashed gays that he got this invitation. Does anyone think that he'd be giving the invocation if he'd said similar things about blacks or Jews?
]]>This gets it right exactly. To all those people who said:
"I'm mad that just because I want less marriage rights for gay people I get called a bigot..."
-your problem is with the dictionary. If you support less rights, in marriage or anything else, for gay people, you are BY DEFINITION, supporting bigotry against gay people. I love Barack Obama but his position against gay marriage (a political not personal one I assume) is by definition a bigoted position.
Trying to justify it only makes it worse. The comparisons made here of gay people to pedophiles and practitioners of incest only prove the point: if you equate gay people to pedaphiles YOU ARE A BIGOT. If you equate gay people to practitioners of incest, YOU ARE A BIGOT.
If this is how you feel, own it, be proud of it, shout it from the blogtops. But don't blame it on Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ said NOT ONE WORD against homosexuality. So don't you dare call Jesus a bigot, don't hide your bigotry behind the cloak of one of the most forgiving and loving characters ever to walk the face of the earth.
]]>Perhaps it's time to try the "to me" qualifier to our arguments. For example, Giorgia wrote, "Obama's selection of Warren is indefensible." Add "to me" to the end of his sentence and it now reads, "Obama's selection of Warren is indefensible to me." It does not mean that the choice is indefensible - only that it is indefensible to Giorgio.
The next time you make a declarative statement that you just know is THE truth, why not add "to me" to the end of your sentence. Then remember that your neighbors, friends, family members and other Americans may feel as passionately and might be just as wrong (or just as right) as you.
Given that I do not follow a religion that condemns homosexuality, and that since we still don't have an established religion in this country, I am therefore not bound to follow the dictates of any religion that does condemn homosexuality, and that with the exception of my wife who occasionally posts here, I don't know any of the commenters here, how does the fact that I married another woman on September 5 affect any of you in any way, shape, or form? And if it doesn't, then why is it so important to those of you who say you're against gay marriage that you want to deliberately make me and some 35,999 other people--most of whom you probably don't know either--feel like second-class citizens, and make us unhappy by destroying our families?
Because in the end, that's what it's about: individual people who are going to be hurt. It's about my wife and I running the City of Heroes Winter Event last night while the chili was simmering, and about putting up the Christmas lights and squirting the kitten with the water bottle to keep him from climbing them, and emptying the cat boxes and vacuuming and shopping for Christmas and New Year's dinner. It's about doing the things that every other married couple does--all the while knowing that there are people who don't know you, but who still think you don't deserve the same rights that they do because you and your spouse have the same wobbly bits.
So, all of you who "don't believe in gay marriage", please give me specific examples of how my marriage threatens you to the point where mine has to stop existing. I want to understand this.
]]>Dear Georgio, I feel your pain (no sarcasm), but your uncritical rant makes my case. First, I never spoke of civil unions. I spoke of equal protection. Second, since you raise the issue, there's no uniform definition of civil unions. They vary from state-to-state for states that have such statutes. You seem to be thinking about domestic partnerships that certainly do not achieve the standard of equal protection. I am with you on a complete rejection of these.
I believe, however, Vermont's civil union statute is recognized under state law as being equal to traditional marriage. No, I'm not saying you should move to Vermont. I'm saying your facts are skewed and your fixation on marriage is screwed.
To be absolutely clear, regardless of the name or tradition, I'm for equal protection/recognition under the law. Hell, I'm more for gay rights than you are.
Again, it's just a simple fact that you're going to get more bigotry and resistance if you insist on appropriating marriage for gay couples. Think about it. If the term "marriage" had not been used in the California case but had granted every thing your heart desired, Proposition 8 would have no basis for even being on the ballot. I hear Attorney General Brown has changed his mind because, get this: proposition 8 violates California's constitution in terms of equal protection. That's why it's likely to be overturned.
But you go ahead. Fight for the symbolic, the religious and the quaint marriage vows. But allow persons like Obama and Brown to work miracles in their own way.
To keep insisting that Obama is a bigot is unfounded and simply revealing what could be your own deep intolerance. Like miracles, bigotry works in mysterious ways.
Peace.
They don't CHOOSE to believe this.
If they want to follow Christ and believe the Bible, they MUST believe this.
Many of them are not trying to be haters, they are just trying to follow what they believe.
Warren's church is filled with "sinners" of every variety.
Keep in mind that EVERY follow of Jesus SHOULD have a deep understanding that all human beings are sinners (fall short of the glory of God).
But know that people can love each other and not agree with some of their lifestyle choices. (Hey, Jesus did!) Can't 2 very different camps CARE for each other as human beings while agreeing to disagree?
Non-Bible Followers could offer the same love, tolerance & understanding to Bible-followers that the Gay community would like to see from the Non-Gay community.
To quote a great piece of literature "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.".
Firstly, I don't think that sexists or racists are necessarily against the entire person. Sexists are people who believe that women, or men, are inferior to members of the other sex and should have different legal rights. My great-grandfather hauled my grandmother out of her job as a journalist because he believed it wasn't appropriate for a woman, but he didn't hate her entire person, he had supported her through university. He was still sexist.
One of my great-uncles says the most racist things about Maori, despite being 1/4 Maori himself, and having (voluntarily) married a Maori woman, and being extremely proud of his Maori grandchildren and great-grandchild. No one looking at his face when he talks about his great-grandson could believe he hates that boy, but my great-uncle is still racist.
On the other side, I was born with dyspraxia. I'm against it. However I don't hate my entire person. You can call me a bigot if you like, but expanding the definition like that rather takes the sting out of it. There's nothing wrong in being against something you're born with. The reason for a lack of prejudice about homosexuality is that there's no evidence that homosexuality causes mental problems separate from society's judgments (and people have looked for such evidence), so in that case what business is it of yours and mine who the neighbour chooses to play hide-the-sausage with? (Assuming consenting adults of course).
]]>And, Lorran, yes you are a bigot. It doesn't matter that you can point to the Bible and claim that it tells you to oppress the gays. It doesn't make it right. The Bible tells me that slavery is OK. It tells me that victims of leprosy are subhuman. Does this mean it's morally acceptable to own slaves and shun those with leprosy? And don't get me started about the utter hypocrisy of religious folk who throw Leviticus in my face to justify their bigotry and hatred. Please don't tell me (a Jew) about the proscriptions of Leviticus while eating a ham sandwich and wearing clothes of mixed fibers.
What really gets me about the whole Warren garbage is that gays are being told that we have to disagree agreeably with bigots. That it's just a matter of a difference of opinion. Well, screw that. My rights and equality before the law are not open to discussion. I don't really care what other people think on this topic. They're my damn rights and I'm entitled to them as a citizen of this country. End of story.
]]>About Prop 8 and the "will of the people": there's a lovely quote from James Brovard: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." This is why we have things like the 14th Amendment to the Constitution--because majorities cannot be counted on to safeguard the rights of minorities.
TNC--thanks for creating an on-going forum for discussion of these issues. Deep gratitude.
]]>This country is all about family and relationships. The first thing you see on a candidate's web page is a picture of his or her family. "Real" participation in many communities means showing up places as couples, participating at the PTA or at your children's schools. Showing up at the office party with your significant other. It's awkward to do all of these things as a gay person, and in some cases it can cause you to get beat up, lose your job, or lose your friends.
And it's harder when even the law says your relationship doesn't count. You can still fire people for being gay in many states. You can still refuse to rent houses to people who are gay in many states. Gay people still can't visit their partners in hospitals in many states. The list goes on and on.
Gay marriage is about saying, hey, you may not like us, and we can't change that, but at least we can stake a claim to equality and dignity as human beings under the LAW.
Make no mistake -- society uses the law to reinforce prejudices all the time. As the Supreme Court said in Lawrence v. Texas, the case that struck down Texas' sodomy statutes:
" Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests. If protected conduct is made criminal and the law which does so remains unexamined for its substantive validity, its stigma might remain even if it were not enforceable as drawn for equal protection reasons. When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres. . . . The stigma this criminal statute imposes, moreover, is not trivial. The offense, to be sure, is but a class C misdemeanor, a minor offense in the Texas legal system. Still, it remains a criminal offense with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged."
Denying gay couples the dignity of marriage isn't the same as making them criminal, but the same principle applies -- if you are second-class under the law, that second-class legal designation makes people feel justified treating our relationships as second-class.
Would people have us live alone in our own ghettos forever? Pretend like we don't want to participate as full members of the workplace (try being in the closet at work. you can't talk to anyone about anything, because they all talk about their families or relationships), or like we don't want to attend our straight friends' weddings or family get-togethers? Are we allowed to participate constructively in civil life, or not?
We have to make the case for ourselves, every time, that it's okay for us to participate in civil society, and that means participating with our significant others and often with our children. We often have to do this without the support of our families, without the support of the churches we grew up with, and without the support of the community around us. When we live in a country that supposedly offers equal protection to all, it's a shame that we also have to do it without the support of the law.
Equality under the law is abstract, yes, but it matters greatly to those who are trying to find their place as members of this society. And it matters psychologically to those who feel different. Equality under the law could make a big difference to that teenage kid sitting in his room in middle America, wondering if he's worth anything even though he's gay. He may not have his family on his side, or his church, or his community. But he's a human being, and this is America. Give him the law.
Maybe there's another option they would accept, but I can't think of one. They may not "hate" us, but they sure would hurt us.
I'm all for working together with Obama on all of this, even if it means putting up with Rick Warren. But I don't want people to belittle the significance of gay rights to do it.
Once discrimination is called out for what it is, and discrimination against gays is finally being publicly called out, it needs to be dealt with in a manner consistent with our American values. Sure there's an economic crisis going on, but as Obama said, as president, he will have to deal with more than one thing at a time. I hope he makes good on this one.
]]>Also, how do you reconcil your stance that your rights and equality before the law are not open to discussion, with freedom of speech? Do you not think that freedom of speech is a civil right? The argument for freedom of speech itself has had to be made by the ACLU over and over again, and there is a long series of litigation over every other right I know of. You are welcome to not care what other people think on this topic, but to just assert that your rights are beyond discussion is rather contradictory.
]]>I don't think Peter is saying people should be denied their free speech rights. I think he's saying his right to be equal under the law should be beyond discussion. As in, we supposedly have equal rights under Constitution, so we should no longer be debating whether gays should have equal rights.
Free speech lets people say lots of things. For example, the NAACP and the ADL and the ACLU say that people are equal under the law regardless of race or religion. The First Amendment lets the Aryan brotherhood and the KKK freely argue the opposite. There are other, less egregious examples, but these are real.
Yet no matter what race you are or what religion you practice, it is reasonable for you to say (as Peter did), that "my rights and equality under the law are not open to discussion." Despite this freedom to disagree, our country professes a commitment to equal rights. Gay people have a right to believe in that commitment and what it means. Even if it takes the country a while to live up to its promises.
]]>And I understand why it's a social necessity for people to disagree agreeably. But how exactly am I supposed to reach out to people who dehumanize me? Why is it that gay folks are the ones being chastised for calling out other people's bigotry and hatred? I, for one, am tired of being tolerant of other people's intolerance. We need to call out bigotry wherever we see it and not excuse it because of a person's beliefs, religious or otherwise.
]]>http://www.tmz.com/2008/12/23/rick-warren-out-of-the-closet/
Oh ye of little faith.
]]>Single people are not necessarily lonely. I'm not lonely and I don't plan to ever marry.
It's interesting that the view of both Same-sex marriage opponents and supporters are more like each other than either is like me. They both seem to see marriage as this wonderful thing that ends loneliness, makes people happy, and reduces or eliminates sexual promiscuity. It can do that, but it can also fail to do that a pretty great percentage of the time. If same-sex marriage ended up like opposite-sex-marriage it'll mean 40-50% ending in divorce, spousal abuse, adultery, one partner giving the other STDs, one partner compromising themselves into non-existence to please the other, etc. It does have the advantage that there will always be someone there to remind you to take your anti-depressants or stop you from suicide. Also, in our age, that you choose it whereas many single people are not single by choice.
Granted I'm in an unfortunate middle-ground in some ways. I have too strong a same-sex attractions to really work in a monastery, or so I think I've always wondered how I'd ask about that, but I have too strong of opposite-sex attractions to avoid all temptation of marriage. As unappealing as marriage seems to me sex and good insurance has some appeal. Still 31 and so far I'm managing my "lonely" life of eight nephews, three great-nephews, two nieces, three sisters, two brothers, and several academic acquaintances.
]]>You don't need a marriage license to have a relationship drama and tragedy. Perhaps marriage and relationships in general are the triumph of hope over experience, but most of the human race either seems to be with someone, or wants to be.
]]>