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

[koheesti]

Many people do not think that the definition of marriage should be changed from a union between a man and a woman and the Defence of Marriage Act is still the law of the land, so putting marriage in quotes is justified.

People can marry their pet goat for all I care but they should still expect an odd look or two when they walk down the street together in some areas.

Please don't do that. That is the kind of thing people like Rick Santorum does, equate gay people to people into bestiality. That's demonization and it is wrong.

Lighten up Francis. See the ? No one is comparing anyone to goats. Now, spider monkeys on the other hand...

[Jingthing]

Many people do not think that the definition of marriage should be changed from a union between a man and a woman and the Defence of Marriage Act is still the law of the land, so putting marriage in quotes is justified.

People can marry their pet goat for all I care but they should still expect an odd look or two when they walk down the street together in some areas.

Please don't do that. That is the kind of thing people like Rick Santorum does, equate gay people to people into bestiality. That's demonization and it is wrong.

Lighten up Francis. See the ? No one is comparing anyone to goats. Now, spider monkeys on the other hand...

OK, Gladys ...

[koheesti]

Strange how the most technologically advanced nation on earth can also be so dam_n retarded when it comes to the equality of it's citizens.

What's Japan got to do with this?

[Jingthing]

Here's an interesting take on the Obama gay marriage position from an intelligent right winger. While of course I disagree with his politics on this, he makes a very good point that there is an inherent contradiction in calling gay marriage equality a CIVIL RIGHT (as I fervently believe) and saying it is a state's right's matter. Look folks if its a states rights matter the goal of equality won't happen. It needs to be FEDERAL issue, most elegantly and likely at the supreme court level, in the same way interracial marriage state laws were ruled unconstitutional:

Argument B has extremely powerful implications. First, if same-sex marriage is a right, then there is no possible justification for letting states decide for themselves. How can you countenance even one state outlawing a fundamental right? Indeed, half a century ago, states’ rights was the cry of those committed to continued segregation and discrimination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/krauthammer-is-gay-marriage-a-matter-of-empathy-or-of-rights/2012/05/17/gIQATN72WU_story.html

[koheesti]

Here's an interesting take on the Obama gay marriage position from an intelligent right winger. While of course I disagree with his politics on this, he makes a very good point that there is an inherent contradiction in calling gay marriage equality a CIVIL RIGHT (as I fervently believe) and saying it is a state's right's matter. Look folks if its a states rights matter the goal of equality won't happen. It needs to be FEDERAL issue, most elegantly and likely at the supreme court level, in the same way interracial marriage state laws were ruled unconstitutional:

Argument B has extremely powerful implications. First, if same-sex marriage is a right, then there is no possible justification for letting states decide for themselves. How can you countenance even one state outlawing a fundamental right? Indeed, half a century ago, states’ rights was the cry of those committed to continued segregation and discrimination.

http://www.washingto...72WU_story.html

Krauthammer is always right.

[Jingthing]

Krauthammer is always right.

... wing ...

He does have my respect which I can't say for very many commentators of his persuasion.

Taking his column further, I'm sure Obama thinks the way I do on this, that the resistors to gay civil rights are indeed bigots just as the resisters to legal interracial marriage were bigots (but now everyone says that). But of course Obama can't say any such thing! I don't think he should either. Leave it to people like me who aren't ever going to run for anything. Also of course I don't really BELIEVE he thinks same sex marriage should be a state's right's issue. I'm sure he knows as I do it must be a federal issue as it is a civil rights issue, so that the bigoted state marriage laws (now most of them) are forced to stop discriminating against an unpopular minority group. But he can't say that either. To make a difference he needs to be reelected and then get some supreme court picks. FEDERAL level. Duh!

Edited May 18, 2012 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Thanks for the post, JT.

I've always had a problem with the use of the word 'marriage' in gay relationships. Probably because of the cultural/religious overtones with which many of us are raised. As we get older, the issues of health care, inheritance and all the other things start to creep into our lives, and these are important factors.

The sad fact is that the sanctity of marriage is not taken too seriously by those opposing it on religious/cultural grounds. The divorce rate in the US is in the 50% range; monogamy is just a word for many. Marriage is treated with the same level of seriousness as is Songkhran.

Equal rights, however, is a right and one which should be extended to all.

[Jingthing]

One thing worth mentioning. For people who say they support separate but equal in the U.S. context without the word marriage, they certainly aren't always bigots. Although I do disagree that separate but equal equals fully equal. However, when you explain there is no practical way to actually ACCOMPLISH their OK compromise in the U.S. system without a federal overruling of the states (which only means a tiny number of states that actually have ANY civil union laws) and there is no constitutional argument for this separate but equal concept (but a STRONG one for equal equal and a precedent), and then they say, too bad about that, I'd rather you guys be disenfranchised FOREVER than share my "sacred" marriage word ... no, that isn't acceptable.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Jingthing

[Scott]

I fully agree with you JT.

[koheesti]

Thanks for the post, JT.

I've always had a problem with the use of the word 'marriage' in gay relationships. Probably because of the cultural/religious overtones with which many of us are raised.

In the former Soviet Union where I have lived, there was no religious connection to marriage. You went to a gov't building and had a civil ceremony where you signed a paper.

In the end, "Marriage" is just a word. Whatever the definition looks like when one opens a dictionary, will not affect anyone's day-to-day life. All those opposed won't feel any change in their lives if gays call themselves married and can point to Websters Dictionary. A gay couple who truly love each other won't love each other more or less depending on what the definition is either. "A rose by any other name" and all that.

As we get older, the issues of health care, inheritance and all the other things start to creep into our lives, and these are important factors.

I've always believed that money is at the root of this debate. Claiming "it is against religion", or that "it is a human right" is just a smokescreen, a diversion. Calling it "marriage" or not is pretty much meaningless. How someone's property is divided after someone's death, or divorce IS NOT meaningless. Who has to pay for health care IS NOT meaningless. Here's a news flash for some - gays are people too. While I'm sure the young ones still want to get married out of what they believe is love, the older ones, just like straights, they want to get legally married to get a legal claim on another person's stuff down the road or be included in their health coverage, or for a tax break. Yeah, I'm a tad cynical, I know.

The sad fact is that the sanctity of marriage is not taken too seriously by those opposing it on religious/cultural grounds. The divorce rate in the US is in the 50% range; monogamy is just a word for many. Marriage is treated with the same level of seriousness as is Songkhran.

No kidding. The institution of marriage is a freakin' joke in modern society.

Equal rights, however, is a right and one which should be extended to all.

Sure, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". If being married makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone, why not?. I just wish we could deal somehow without politicians. They work for ALL OF US and have much more urgent issues to deal with. They should not be getting a free pass on the economy, jobs, health care, national defense by using same sex marriage (or gov't provided contraception) as a diversion.

[Jingthing]

All 50 U.S. states facilitate marriages at the CIVIL level. In other words, it is done through the SECULAR laws of each state. Marriage ceremonies in religious houses of worship are totally optional, and the legal document is completely the same no matter if you have your ceremony at a city hall or at a grand cathedral.

Religious people objecting to legal same sex marriage on religious grounds might make sense in a country that is a THEOCRACY. The U.S.A. is (happily) not structured that way. The religious excuse was interestingly also used to defend the bans on INTERRACIAL marriages that were eventually overruled by the supreme court on constitutional grounds.

You can dislike any group you like the U.S. But that doesn't mean you have the right to deny them the same basic civil rights as everyone else. That is why the anti same sex marriage people are so obviously on the wrong side of history.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Many people do not think that the definition of marriage should be changed from a union between a man and a woman and the Defence of Marriage Act is still the law of the land, so putting marriage in quotes is justified.

This guy also thinks it's justified to put "marriage" in quotes. It's obviously something that only people or media organs that are blatantly anti-gay would use. It is totally UNJUSTIFIED.

Leviticus 20:13 reads: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

http://www.huffingto...s&ir=Gay Voices

[Steely Dan]

Many people do not think that the definition of marriage should be changed from a union between a man and a woman and the Defence of Marriage Act is still the law of the land, so putting marriage in quotes is justified.

This guy also thinks it's justified to put "marriage" in quotes. It's obviously something that only people or media organs that are blatantly anti-gay would use. It is totally UNJUSTIFIED.

Leviticus 20:13 reads: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

http://www.huffingto...s&ir=Gay Voices

I think Judeo-Christian jurisprudence has had an update on that particular quote hundreds of years ago, so to try and pin that one in any literal sense one any elements of the Republican party is somewhat over egging the biscuit, though I'm sure the quote will be used to tar them all by association, come election time of course.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Steely Dan

[Jingthing]

OK, folks, more history was just made. Americans will understand the importance of the NAACP in the black civil rights movement. Now they have come out FULLY in support of civil rights for gay people in the same tradition as for black people. This is huge. This is a game changer. The right side of history may be coming sooner than many people might have thought.

You know they say Lincoln freed the slaves. Will they later say Obama freed the gays?

http://www.washingto...SFSbU_blog.html

“Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law,” NAACP president Benjamin Todd Jealous said in a statement released Saturday. “The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people. The well-funded right wing organizations who are attempting to split our communities are no friend to civil rights, and they will not succeed.”

Yes, Virginia, this DOES mean opponents of full constitutional rights for gay people are indeed bigoted in exactly the same way opponents of interracial marriages were bigoted.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

You know they say Lincoln freed the slaves. Will they later say Obama freed the gays?

To compare Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation which was an executive order he issued freeing over 3 million slaves to Obama saying that while he is personally for same sex marriage but will leave it to the States to decide is ridiculous and even offensive. Obama won't even make it part of his party's platform in the upcoming election, but instead will leave it to someone else to decide. Lincoln and Obama couldn't be more different.

[koheesti]

“Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law,” NAACP president Benjamin Todd Jealous said in a statement released Saturday. “The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people. The well-funded right wing organizations who are attempting to split our communities are no friend to civil rights, and they will not succeed.”

Yes, Virginia, this DOES mean opponents of full constitutional rights for gay people are indeed bigoted in exactly the same way opponents of interracial marriages were bigoted.

No it doesn't. Just because one organization supports two different issues 50 years apart does not make the opponents of those two issues exactly the same. What kind of kooky logic is that?

Edited May 19, 2012 by koheesti

[Scott]

Drop the snide remarks about other poster's comments.

Stay on the topic, without a history lesson going back either to the Old Testament or to the US Civil War.

[marquess]

I think that if marriage is something that is ordained by the State then the state can define in whatever way it likes, but if there is a religious element to it then I don't see how religion can sanction that which is contrary to its teachings. I foresee a time when people may well say we are married religiously as being a greater distinction from that which is sanctioned by the State. Personally I would not wanted to be associated with the term marriage as defined by the State ,if the the next question is to a man or a woman?

[Scott]

Drop the snide remarks about other poster's comments.

Stay on the topic, without a history lesson going back either to the Old Testament or to the US Civil War.

Off-topic posters are going to get a warning and suspension of posting ability. You have been warned.

[Jingthing]

You know they say Lincoln freed the slaves. Will they later say Obama freed the gays?

To compare Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation which was an executive order he issued freeing over 3 million slaves to Obama saying that while he is personally for same sex marriage but will leave it to the States to decide is ridiculous and even offensive. Obama won't even make it part of his party's platform in the upcoming election, but instead will leave it to someone else to decide. Lincoln and Obama couldn't be more different.

Don't be shocked. I asked the question. I didn't say yes to the question. I think they MAY say that if Obama is reelected, if he gets some key supreme court picks that make a difference, and if later a historic winning case is won that forces all 50 states to no longer discriminate against same sex couples. The laws always take longer than public opinion. I feel the NAACP is a major step. That's a really old group, part of the establishment now. It's significant that such a group is now directly linking the black civil rights and the gay civil rights movements. Something gay civil rights activists have been doing for a long time with resistance of course. I feel that changes the national psychology in a significant way paving the way for a supreme court ruling as described. The court is not supposed to be political but that's an ideal never met; they generally don't like to make rulings the country isn't quite ready for. NAACP says we're more ready. As far as Obama's stated position, I reckon if he gets a second term there may be more "evolution" in store. It won't be very hard for him to move from where he is now to where the crusty old NAACP is! Not that it matters. What matters are the supreme court picks. It's not as if a pro same sex marriage constitutional amendment is going to ever happen.

[Steely Dan]

There's one thing Obama could do which would impress me, namely making U.S foreign aid contingent on recipient nations not persecuting their gay citizens. This would not needless to say go as far as equal rights, but in terms of lessening human suffering I think this would be a far more important initiative. P.S As a reminder in case it were needed I am in favour of gay marriage though ambivalent on what term is given for it.

[Scott]

Oh, goodness, that would cut the Foreign Aid down to pretty close to zero!

We could only supply Aid to North Korea, they treat pretty much everyone equally bad!

[Jingthing]

There's one thing Obama could do which would impress me, namely making U.S foreign aid contingent on recipient nations not persecuting their gay citizens. This would not needless to say go as far as equal rights, but in terms of lessening human suffering I think this would be a far more important initiative. P.S As a reminder in case it were needed I am in favour of gay marriage though ambivalent on what term is given for it.

I don't agree with that. I'm an American first. Foreign policy needs to be based on overall American interests first. America is already providing leadership on this issue, see Hillary Clinton's historic speech to a UN human rights group, gays rights are human rights. However, given that the USA is behind many other nation's now in actually implementing full civil rights for gays, its credibility is still very limited on this issue. Edited May 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

However, given that the USA is behind many other nation's now in actually implementing full civil rights for gays, its credibility is still very limited on this issue.

Keep things in perspective. When I lived in Moscow I had the idea that minorities who complained about discrimination in the USA should move to Russia for a while to experience what true discrimination is. Then they would return to the USA and kiss the ground when they got off the plane. That doesn't make everything perfect in the USA for minorities, but it still gives us more credibility than those where we send foreign aid. And when you're the one giving money, you have EVERY RIGHT to make demands of those you are giving it to.

Edited May 20, 2012 by koheesti

[Steely Dan]

There's one thing Obama could do which would impress me, namely making U.S foreign aid contingent on recipient nations not persecuting their gay citizens. This would not needless to say go as far as equal rights, but in terms of lessening human suffering I think this would be a far more important initiative. P.S As a reminder in case it were needed I am in favour of gay marriage though ambivalent on what term is given for it.

I don't agree with that. I'm an American first. Foreign policy needs to be based on overall American interests first. America is already providing leadership on this issue, see Hillary Clinton's historic speech to a UN human rights group, gays rights are human rights. However, given that the USA is behind many other nation's now in actually implementing full civil rights for gays, its credibility is still very limited on this issue.

Thankyou for your candour. I didn't incidentally invent this hypothetical question, there is a precedent where the UK prime minister threatened to cut aid to Countries which impose anti-homosexual laws, and Cameron is from what's purported to be the UK mainstream right wing party.

[folium]

There's one thing Obama could do which would impress me, namely making U.S foreign aid contingent on recipient nations not persecuting their gay citizens. This would not needless to say go as far as equal rights, but in terms of lessening human suffering I think this would be a far more important initiative. P.S As a reminder in case it were needed I am in favour of gay marriage though ambivalent on what term is given for it.

I don't agree with that. I'm an American first. Foreign policy needs to be based on overall American interests first. America is already providing leadership on this issue, see Hillary Clinton's historic speech to a UN human rights group, gays rights are human rights. However, given that the USA is behind many other nation's now in actually implementing full civil rights for gays, its credibility is still very limited on this issue.

Thankyou for your candour. I didn't incidentally invent this hypothetical question, there is a precedent where the UK prime minister threatened to cut aid to Countries which impose anti-homosexual laws, and Cameron is from what's purported to be the UK mainstream right wing party.

It's all a bit of a mess with politicians such as Hilary Clinton and David Cameron advocating more tolerance for gays, while the growing influence of (largely US) evangelical churches in Africa, Asia & Latin America push a hard anti-gay line. For instance mentioning gay rights in missionary schools in Chiang Mai will go down like a fart in a phonebox. Homophobia seems to be endemic in fundamentalist religious areas, certainly both Christian and Muslim, not sure where fundamentalist Jews stand on this issue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16068010

re Cameron, he has over the years tried to reposition the Conservatives away from the old knee-jerk reactionary mindset to a more middle of the road, broad-minded party, hence the focus on gay rights and other more enlightened views.

[Jingthing]

I'm sorry but I posted too quickly and the word "persecuting" didn't register. Yes I would agree with sanctions against nations persecuting any group in a very harsh way including gays and I recall this was mentioned in Hillary Clinton's speech. The first post was more about being careful not to go overboard in cultural imperialism. The US can't be policeman to the world anymore; we're broke. I guess it boils down to how to define persecution. Many countries criminalize homosexuality but not all enforce that very much, and most don't impose the death penalty. It wouldn't be realistic to put sanctions on every country that simply criminalizes homosexuality, but for the few that go overboard, I could see that as another matter. Iran is an example. You hardly need the gay issue to have a reason to put sanctions on Iran these days!

[koheesti]

I don't want my government to tell individuals how they must think, that they must accept every different lifestyle/religion out there. Everybody is at least a little prejudiced against somebody. BUT, just because a government doesn't tell you how to think, doesn't mean they shouldn't protect their citizens from people who want to ACT on their prejudices. I have no problem with the USA telling countries that we give or lend money to that we are going to hold back funds as long as they turn a blind eye to physical harm caused to their citizens out of some silly prejudice. What if stoning people to death is part of their culture? Reply that it is a part of our culture not to give money to support people who don't protect their own. If a country wants to throw people in jail for being gay, don't give them any money. I have no problem with that.

Edited May 20, 2012 by koheesti

[Jingthing]

It's not that black and white. Each case is different and I thin each case should be intelligently considered. For example, food aid. It saves lives. You can't blame all the people that would benefit including innocent children for their government's policies.

[folium]

Map shows where gay people face legal sanctions up to and including the death penalty. Basically blue countries treat gays equitably with the dark blue being countries that allow same-sex marriage. The brown, orange and red states are those that view homosexuality as illegal with the dark red states imposing the death penalty.

Basically witholding aid on the basis of gay rights would severely impact needy areas of the world, not to mention the fact that Africa is rapidly becoming the US's main oil source as it seeks to diversify away from the Middle East.

So its the usual mix of geopolitics, good intentions and attempting to avoid collateral effects on the vulnerable.

Whoops, map won't upload, so here's the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg

Edited May 20, 2012 by folium