U.S. President Barack Obama Says 'Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal'

[Jingthing]

As you probably know l am not from the US of A. So your political stuff does not interest me at all, cos it's all <deleted>. This thread is about YET another ''try and win'' some more votes in a ''dodgy'' might lose state.

Then why post here if you aren't interested in a USA political topic? Did you read the OP? What do you think this about, Bolivian rights in Brazil?

Also, first you say you aren't interested, then make an absurd assertion that Obama's gay stance will help win the election. That makes no sense. It makes North Carolina almost impossible to win. Please make up your mind, you know about and are interested in US politics and want to comment about it, or not. You seem to want it both ways.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[transam]

As you probably know l am not from the US of A. So your political stuff does not interest me at all, cos it's all <deleted>. This thread is about YET another ''try and win'' some more votes in a ''dodgy'' might lose state.

Then why post here if you aren't interested in a USA political topic? Did you read the OP? What do you think this about, Bolivian rights in Brazil?

It's a world wide forum, if you don't like my posts then ignore them, but others can read.

[Jingthing]

It's a world wide forum, if you don't like my posts then ignore them, but others can read.

Fair enough, but don't whinge if you're British and I post in a British political topic, I don't care about or know anything about British politics, but those Tories are a bunch of _)%^%_^!

Be clear, you don't have to be American to know about or care about American politics and of course posting here is open to all! It's just that there IS a topic here and it is rather specific.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[transam]

It's a world wide forum, if you don't like my posts then ignore them, but others can read.

Fair enough, but don't whinge if you're British and I post in a British political topic, I don't care about or know anything about British politics, but those Tories are a bunch of _)%^%_^!

Be clear, you don't have to be American to know about or care about American politics and of course posting here is open to all! It's just that there IS a topic here and it is rather specific.

I know it's specific, a VOTE catcher from a guy that's lost it.

[Jingthing]

It's a world wide forum, if you don't like my posts then ignore them, but others can read.

Fair enough, but don't whinge if you're British and I post in a British political topic, I don't care about or know anything about British politics, but those Tories are a bunch of _)%^%_^!

Be clear, you don't have to be American to know about or care about American politics and of course posting here is open to all! It's just that there IS a topic here and it is rather specific.

I know it's specific, a VOTE catcher from a guy that's lost it.

OK, that's your opinion. Most knowledgeable people think it's a vote LOSER! That's why I didn't want him to "come out" this way until AFTER reeelection. It will help fire up his more progressive base but not sure that can compensate for losing North Carolina or even Virginia. Of course US elections are about 50 separate STATE battles, not popular votes. Edited June 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[transam]

It's a world wide forum, if you don't like my posts then ignore them, but others can read.

Fair enough, but don't whinge if you're British and I post in a British political topic, I don't care about or know anything about British politics, but those Tories are a bunch of _)%^%_^!

Be clear, you don't have to be American to know about or care about American politics and of course posting here is open to all! It's just that there IS a topic here and it is rather specific.

I know it's specific, a VOTE catcher from a guy that's lost it.

OK, that's your opinion. Most knowledgeable people think it's a vote LOSER! That's why I didn't want him to "come out" this way until AFTER reeelection. It will help fire up his more progressive base but not sure that can compensate for losing North Carolina or even Virginia. Of course US elections are about 50 separate STATE battles, not popular votes.

BUT, he IS being advised , he knows he has lost the plot, sooooooooo now clutching at straws eh. Well, just my thoughts.

[Jingthing]

OK, hear you. You don't like Obama. So what about same sex marriage civil rights? Pro or con, and why?

[transam]

OK, hear you. You don't like Obama. So what about same sex marriage civil rights? Pro or con, and why?

I personally have nothing against Obama. You voted him in, so, cool.

BUT, the word MARRIAGE is used to bond a man and woman together in holy (or not) matrimony. THAT'S IT.

If two guys or two l ladies want to hook up for ''ever'', great, but find a different word. Anything you like, but don't pick the same word that a couple use to possible recreate life for their forefathers.

My view.

[Jingthing]

OK, hear you. You don't like Obama. So what about same sex marriage civil rights? Pro or con, and why?

I personally have nothing against Obama. You voted him in, so, cool.

BUT, the word MARRIAGE is used to bond a man and woman together in holy (or not) matrimony. THAT'S IT.

If two guys or two l ladies want to hook up for ''ever'', great, but find a different word. Anything you like, but don't pick the same word that a couple use to possible recreate life for their forefathers.

My view.

OK. But total equality in the US for gay people, with same sex civil unions in ALL 50 states with full federal recognition is not something that is really in the cards. Not going to go over this again as I've explained why about 50 times and if you really care you can search the forum. So we have a choice of fighting for full equality (via the supreme court on the basis of being discriminated against regarding MARRIAGE laws) using the marriage word or a total patchwork mess with unlikely federal recognition for even those states with civil union laws. We can't argue about discrimination using the civil union argument because there is no constitutional argument to be made about that. Only marriage laws exist in ALL 50 states, civil unions only a few. I reckon you must be from UK and naively think your solution is practical for the US. It is not. So what you just voiced is a nice theory, but in real life, gay people in America have almost no choice but to push for MARRIAGE equality, NOT civil unions. Edited June 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[transam]

OK, hear you. You don't like Obama. So what about same sex marriage civil rights? Pro or con, and why?

I personally have nothing against Obama. You voted him in, so, cool.

BUT, the word MARRIAGE is used to bond a man and woman together in holy (or not) matrimony. THAT'S IT.

If two guys or two l ladies want to hook up for ''ever'', great, but find a different word. Anything you like, but don't pick the same word that a couple use to possible recreate life for their forefathers.

My view.

OK. But total equality in the US for gay people, with same sex civil unions in ALL 50 states with full federal recognition is not something that is really in the cards. Not going to go over this again as I've explained why about 50 times and if you really care you can search the forum. So we have a choice of fighting for full equality (via the supreme court on the basis of being discriminated against regarding MARRIAGE laws) using the marriage word or a total patchwork mess with unlikely federal recognition for even those states with civil union laws. We can't argue about discrimination using the civil union argument because there is no constitutional argument to be made about that. Only marriage laws exist in ALL 50 states, civil unions only a few. I reckon you must be from UK and naively think your solution is practical for the US. It is not. So what you just voiced is a nice theory, but in real life, gay people in America have almost no choice but to push for MARRIAGE equality, NOT civil unions.

Yep from England. If you guys and gals want something on paper to be recognized, great, happy for you, BUT, don't call it marriage. This word is centuries old to serve a purpose, the word does not have anything to do with your cause.

[Jingthing]

Yep from England. If you guys and gals want something on paper to be recognized, great, happy for you, BUT, don't call it marriage. This word is centuries old to serve a purpose, the word does not have anything to do with your cause.

I explained to you we can't win equality without the discrimination argument. Discrimination in regards to MARRIAGE. We're not discriminated in regards to civil unions. That is the US system. We have 50 states and each state has its own marriage laws. The only answer is a FEDERAL action. Passing federal laws alone can't force US states to offer civil unions. The only way to attack this is around marriage based discrimination. It is what it is. I understand what you're saying but the fight in the US NEEDS to be about marriage equality. We do want not only something meaningless on paper, but something that has the same legal meaning as marriage. Again, in the US, this must be a marriage document and it must have federal recognition. Edited June 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Here is what I'm talking about regarding first class citizenship.

If I go to city hall in the vast majority of U.S. states with another man and ask to be married, the answer will be NO. If it was a woman, the answer would be YES. In a few US states, the answer would be YES for same sex marriage, but these marriages would be WORTHLESS at the national level and MOST other U.S. states.

Whether or not there was a "flamboyant" gay parade happening the same day outside those city halls would make ZERO difference to how I was treated.

Was I not clear enough before what I meant by second class citizen? Is it clear enough now? (Geez!)

I wish we could trade some of our First Class Rights for something tangible. I'd be happy to give you my right to marry (not sure that really is one, but what the heck, if I can get something for it...) for a car or something.

[transam]

Yep from England. If you guys and gals want something on paper to be recognized, great, happy for you, BUT, don't call it marriage. This word is centuries old to serve a purpose, the word does not have anything to do with your cause.

I explained to you we can't win equality without the discrimination argument. Discrimination in regards to MARRIAGE. We're not discriminated in regards to civil unions. That is the US system. We have 50 states and each state has its own marriage laws. The only answer is a FEDERAL action. Passing federal laws alone can't force US states to offer civil unions. The only way to attack this is around marriage based discrimination. It is what it is. I understand what you're saying but the fight in the US NEEDS to be about marriage equality.

Hmmmm, l see what you say on the legal front, hmmmm, difficult.

Must confess that a legal thing l had to deal with in UK was all about ''legal'' wording. Totally disagreed with my lawyer but had to follow his advice. I thought this is shit, BUT, won the case.

[Jingthing]

Here is what I'm talking about regarding first class citizenship.

If I go to city hall in the vast majority of U.S. states with another man and ask to be married, the answer will be NO. If it was a woman, the answer would be YES. In a few US states, the answer would be YES for same sex marriage, but these marriages would be WORTHLESS at the national level and MOST other U.S. states.

Whether or not there was a "flamboyant" gay parade happening the same day outside those city halls would make ZERO difference to how I was treated.

Was I not clear enough before what I meant by second class citizen? Is it clear enough now? (Geez!)

I wish we could trade some of our First Class Rights for something tangible. I'd be happy to give you my right to marry (not sure that really is one, but what the heck, if I can get something for it...) for a car or something.

What did you do to get that status for free when I can't even pay for that status?

[Jingthing]

Bottom line, I think most US gays would settle for civil unions in all 50 states, same rights as marriage, with full federal recognition. The trouble is that "settling" goal is actually MUCH HARDER to achieve legally (and to finish it would almost definitely take MUCH longer, 50 states, messy) than just one major marriage equality win in the supreme court.

[koheesti]

Yeah, black people shouldn't have been "uppity" either, after all most people ain't black ...

If it was YOUR civil rights being denied, I guarantee you would be exercised about this.

Blacks make up more than 10% of the population and had a helluva lot more rights denied them than getting married. Obviously not many black Americans on this thread because if there I wouldn't be left to tell you how offensive that comparison is.

The argument of the right wing here seems to be if you gay folks had just stayed in your your little closets and been credits to your team, you would have full equality under the law in the US now. When pigs fly!

In politics, depending on the way you go about trying to get something done it can lead to a quick solution, or it can take forever. You seem to be of the mind that it is best to take forever. It makes sense.

[koheesti]

OK, that's your opinion. Most knowledgeable people think it's a vote LOSER! That's why I didn't want him to "come out" this way until AFTER reeelection.

too late...

[koheesti]

Marriage - does it really matter what the literal definition is? There are a lot of words we use today with more meanings than they had originally.

Like I've stated here before;

1) I don't care if two consenting adults want to get married. Who does it hurt?

2) If I love someone, it doesn't matter to me what our relationship is called as long as we are together.

3) How our relationship is seen by governments would be important for financial reasons, insurance, or maybe a visa (in Dubai men and women living together are supposed to be married). But I wouldn't use "love" and "human rights" as a smokescreen for these issues. It would fall under the "<deleted>! That's not fair!" category instead.

4) In these dire economic times, politicians have more important issues to spend time on - economy, jobs, debt, for example.

5) Finally, except for collecting revenue from marriage licenses, government should be left out of who can or can't get married.

[Jingthing]

Yeah, black people shouldn't have been "uppity" either, after all most people ain't black ...

If it was YOUR civil rights being denied, I guarantee you would be exercised about this.

Blacks make up more than 10% of the population and had a helluva lot more rights denied them than getting married. Obviously not many black Americans on this thread because if there I wouldn't be left to tell you how offensive that comparison is.

The argument of the right wing here seems to be if you gay folks had just stayed in your your little closets and been credits to your team, you would have full equality under the law in the US now. When pigs fly!

In politics, depending on the way you go about trying to get something done it can lead to a quick solution, or it can take forever. You seem to be of the mind that it is best to take forever. It makes sense.

No apologies directly comparing the black civil rights movement to the gay one. Some black people may not like it. Some real important ones DO like it:

John Lewis is one the most important black civil rights activists in American history. No, he's not MLK, but he is VERY important.

Meanwhile, civil rights luminaries such as NAACP board chairman Julian Bond and U.S. Rep. John Lewis, one of the organizers of the 1963 march on Washington, have spoken on the side of gay marriage. Bond said he supports "gay civil or religious marriage," and finds strong parallels between the black and gay rights movements.

"Discrimination is discrimination - no matter who the victim is, and it is always wrong," he told The Associated Press. "There are no `special rights' in America, despite the attempts by many to divide blacks and the gay community with the argument that the latter are seeking some imaginary `special rights' at the expense of blacks."

http://jacksonville....D815AP582.shtml

Lewis speaks at Atlanta Pride. There is indeed still POLITICS involved in these events.

The gay strategy for marriage equality is based on winning a supreme court case like the one that made banning interracial marriages ILLEGAL for all 50 states instantly. You can't run from the direct comparisons between the gay civil rights movement and the black one. If that offends some people, black or otherwise, sorry about that. NO minority OWNS civil rights struggles.

I'm also sure President Obama is with gays on this but for political reasons he can't be so open about it.

As far as the length of time it will take for American gays to achieve marriage equality vs. civil unions/50 states/same rights/federal recognition, I firmly believe as do the brilliant people involved in this movement including BOTH the Bush vs. Gore supreme court lawyers, that the MARRIAGE path will be achieved QUICKER. And yes, it is also better. I know UK people here don't understand this. Our system is different. Sorry about that.

Please get a grip about this. What happened in the UK is great, but really, NO quick and easy solution for national civil unions EXISTS in America. I don't get why some people here are relentlessly promoting this total falsehood.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Yeah, black people shouldn't have been "uppity" either, after all most people ain't black ...

If it was YOUR civil rights being denied, I guarantee you would be exercised about this.

Blacks make up more than 10% of the population and had a helluva lot more rights denied them than getting married. Obviously not many black Americans on this thread because if there I wouldn't be left to tell you how offensive that comparison is.

The argument of the right wing here seems to be if you gay folks had just stayed in your your little closets and been credits to your team, you would have full equality under the law in the US now. When pigs fly!

In politics, depending on the way you go about trying to get something done it can lead to a quick solution, or it can take forever. You seem to be of the mind that it is best to take forever. It makes sense.

No apologies directly comparing the black civil rights movement to the gay one. Some black people may not like it. Some real important ones DO like it:

------

The gay strategy for marriage equality is based on winning a supreme court case like the one that made banning interracial marriages ILLEGAL for all 50 states instantly. You can't run from the direct comparisons between the gay civil rights movement and the black one. If that offends some people, black or otherwise, sorry about that. NO minority OWNS civil rights struggles.

If you want to compare interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, I'll agree.

If you want to compare the fight for same-sex marriage to the overall struggle of blacks for civil rights in America you are wrong. The vast majority of blacks are on my side on that one no matter how many left wing black leaders you dig up who pretend it is the same in the interest of keeping blacks voters from abandoning Obama this November.

[Jingthing]

I'm not saying they are the same or have faced the same things. Blacks came to America as SLAVES! I totally respect the black civil rights movement. However, you are SO WRONG if you think the history of the American gay civil rights movement is ONLY about marriage rights and the denial of marriage is the ONLY discrimination gay Americans have faced. You don't really think that do you? Please say no. If so, please do some basic research and get back to me because this isn't civil rights romper room. Also keep in mind that although gay marriage equality has indeed become the focus of the current gay civil rights movement, the American gay civil rights movement goes back for decades and there have been lots of OTHER issues (and there still are).

It's very white of you that you're "feeling" the outrage of black people for black people. I know we have some black Americans reading this forum and I'm happy to talk with any of them directly.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Bottom line, I think most US gays would settle for civil unions in all 50 states, same rights as marriage, with full federal recognition.

Well, most of us seem to agree that is just. The gay lobby needs to concentrate on that goal as changing the traditional definition of marriage is not going to get many votes from the mainstream electorate.

[Jingthing]

Bottom line, I think most US gays would settle for civil unions in all 50 states, same rights as marriage, with full federal recognition.

Well, most of us seem to agree that is just. The gay lobby needs to concentrate on that goal as changing the traditional definition of marriage is not going to get many votes from the mainstream electorate.

It is not practical. I've explained this numerous times already. You say you don't believe me but can't be bothered to explain how it is practical to achieve that. There is no supreme court tactic for it. You're an American. Unlike some, I'm sure you KNOW a civil union constitutional amendment is a total non-starter. You also know how many redneck states are in the US that would not only never legislate state gay marriage they also will not legislate state civil unions. You also know for the states that do have gay civil unions, a law to give federal powers must pass the house, senate, and president. You know you need 60 votes of 100 in the senate and you know that won't pass. Not to mention who might be president. Again, throwing a bone that's a lump of coal. Really the path is clear -- gay MARRIAGE equality won in the supreme court. That's what is going to happen over time. There is no path for that for civil unions because the marriage argument is about unfair discrimination. You wouldn't argue in the supreme court for separate but equal, you know as an American that is not how it works. If you think there is a practical way to win national civil unions/50 states same rights as marriage: speak up. HOW? The right wing clearly doesn't want equal rights for gay people. This changing the definition rhetoric is just a convenient excuse of right wingers to discriminate against gay people.

Also, yes I'm OK with snippets but your use of that snippet would lead some to think I am in favor of a civil union strategy and think it is PRACTICAL. In the context you left out, I meant I would be OK with it IF if was practical and fast. It is not practical nor fast. The supreme court strategy is the most elegant, global, and practical with the best chance of a clean success. A supreme court strategy NEEDS to be about marriage. Imagine the win regarding interracial marriages. Imagine the absurdity of going to the supreme court with a case about civil unions for mixed race couples vs. marriages. Unthinkable! The supreme court gay marriage strategy also has not been fast, but like the black civil rights movement ... Keep Your Eye On The Prize.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[Colin Yai]

Bottom line, I think most US gays would settle for civil unions in all 50 states, same rights as marriage, with full federal recognition.

Well, most of us seem to agree that is just. The gay lobby needs to concentrate on that goal as changing the traditional definition of marriage is not going to get many votes from the mainstream electorate.

It is not practical. I've explained this numerous times already. You say you don't believe me but can't be bothered to explain how it is practical to achieve that. There is no supreme court tactic for it. You're an American. Unlike some, I'm sure you KNOW a civil union constitutional amendment is a total non-starter. You also know how many redneck states are in the US that would not only never legislate state gay marriage they also will not legislate state civil unions. You also know for the states that do have gay civil unions, a law to give federal powers must pass the house, senate, and president. You know you need 60 votes of 100 in the senate and you know that won't pass. Not to mention who might be president. Again, throwing a bone that's a lump of coal. Really the path is clear -- gay MARRIAGE equality won in the supreme court. That's what is going to happen over time. There is no path for that for civil unions because the marriage argument is about unfair discrimination. You wouldn't argue in the supreme court for separate but equal, you know as an American that is not how it works. If you think there is: speak up. HOW? The right wing clearly doesn't want equal rights for gay people. This changing the definition rhetoric is just a convenient excuse of right wingers to discriminate against gay people.

Don't you mean AMERICAN right wingers ,those dreadful British Tories you wrote about earlier appear OK with the idea!If I remember rightly you even praised them in one of your earlier posts on the Tories stance on the subject Edited June 1, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Jingthing]

Yes. Congratulations. The UK is ahead of the US on this issue. Please don't gloat.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

It is not practical nor fast.

Nothing good ever came easily, but IMO civil unions will be supported by most people. After the Obamacare debacle it is going to be a lot more difficult to force unpopular laws down the throat of the electorate. Maybe some activist judge will insist on changing the traditional definition of marriage, but I would not count on it.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

It is not practical nor fast.

Nothing good ever came easily. After the Obamacare debacle it is going to be a lot more difficult to force unpopular laws down the throat of the electorate. Maybe some activist judge will insist on changing the traditional definition of marriage, but I would not count on it.

Thanks a million. Like I imagined. You don't care if American gays have to wait 200 years for this wonderful separate but equal compromise deal. You also haven't said how you think practically we can get it sooner. Thanks but no thanks. The supreme court strategy is working and the strategy is known, understood, well supported, and when accomplished, achieves full equality. In other words, massively better in the American context. Maybe the idea of gay equality is new to you but it is a struggle that has been going on for many decades now. You're right. Not easy. Edited June 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[Scott]

If my recollection of history is correct, the Supreme Court had essentially supported equal rights for Blacks long before equal rights became a reality. First there was Separate but Equal laws, which allowed for segregation and the SC decided this wasn't constitutional because they were, in fact, not equal. But the SC doesn't have the power to enforce any law. I believe one of the presidents once said something to the effect of ' if the SC feels that way, let them enforce it.'

The demographics between the two groups were also different. Blacks were located largely in the South (with the exception of some northern US cities). There was a large geographical area that was not going to be impacted by equal rights for Blacks. There was also the North-South divide, at least mentally, that lent support from Northerners for Equal rights.

Gays are probably more equally distributed. The impact is perceived as being an 'infringement' on the majority of people. The legal road will need to follow Black civil rights, but the differences need to be noted.

[MrRealDeal]

For those who think marraige means a man and a woman joined together legally,,,,,,,,, they would be incorrect,,,,,,,,,, as defined by law Blacks Law dictionary marriage is "two PEOPLE legally joined together".

[Ulysses G.]

The traditional definition is a man and a woman. The politically correct version is whole different thing.