TNR‘s James Downie put together a timeline showing Barack Obama‘s shifting — evolving? — stance on same-sex marriage. It goes like this: “I support legalizing gay marriage” to “undecided” to “civil unions are cool” to “Ewww, no way!”
crashes
What Happened In The 14 Years Since Barack Obama Outed Himself As a Gay Marriage Supporter
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
Sean
Sigh. It’s unfortunate. However, we have to ask ourselves, would we have preferred to have an unelectable Democrat in 2008 and McCain-Palin in the White House, or what we have now?
The simple fact is Barack Obama would not have won the election if he had said he supported gay marriage.
REBELComx
@Sean: Do you think he’ll change his mind back in our favor IF his 2nd term gets going?
Tim W
Cue the Obamapoligists in 3…2…1…
Sean
@REBELComx: I would hope so, but I think it’s irrelevant to what’s the best for our country as a whole, and not just for gays and lesbians.
I’m not an “Obamapologist”. I just know better than to be the kind of liberal who requires the politicians I support to 100% meet my litmus test. We would have a Republican in the White House every year for the rest of our lives if everyone thought like @Tim W
tjr101
What happened the last 14years? He decided to run for higher office that’s what! He has merely morphed into an acceptable candidate for a wider market of voters.
A better question is, would Barack Obama be president if he still supported same-sex marriage?
CJ
Dickey Cheney and Laura Bush are more “progressive” than Obama when it comes to equality. And yet – many here will defend Obama to the death. All because of a little “D” next to his name.
CJ
“A better question is, would Barack Obama be president if he still supported same-sex marriage?”
But, he’s already been elected. That was over 18 months ago.
What explains his defending DOMA, not pushing for ENDA – and sending out surveys for DADT? Is there a convenient excuse for each?
Tim W
@Sean: Hell I might be willing to give him a pass if this was the only issue. The fact of the matter is the president has refused to spend any political capital on ENDA, UAFA, repeal of DADT and DOMA. I am frankly sick of the Democrats taking our votes and money for granted and willing to throw us under the bus. That’s why we are where we are. They think we have nowhere else to go. For the first time I am going to vote for 3rd party candidates. I refused to buy into the fear the Democrats and their allies you by rolling out well we are better than the Republicans. A root canal is better than being shot in the head but if I have a 3rd choice not to have either done I’ll take that thank you very much.
romayne
I kinda feel sorry for him, I feel he wants to support the gay community publicly but doing that would make him unpopular and would diminish his political reputation. That would explain why he says he thinks marriage is between one man and one woman but opposes things like Prop 8 and DOMA, he’s in an awkward position and is trying to please everybody.
Sean
@Tim W: I think that if all you care about are gay issues like DADT, ENDA and gay marriage, you’re being extremely selfish and not caring about bigger issues that effect more people. It’s fine to care, very passionately, about these niche issues, but if you lose your sense of political reality, it’s all for nothing.
Thomas
“The simple fact is Barack Obama would not have won the election if he had said he supported gay marriage.”
Agreed. The time are a changin though, so it will be interesting to see how he back peddles in the future when it comes to gay marriage. He can’t support it now, even though I am sure he does, so what will he attribute his change in beliefs too when in fact it is not political suicide to support gay marriage, I wonder. Then again, what the hell do I know?
party everywhere
Only a true Obama-hater would find something negative to say about Obama having supported gay marriage in 1996.
While Bill Clinton was signing DOMA in 1996 (which I think he needed to do to win a second term), Obama was standing up for us, even though the state senate district he was running in did not have a large gay population (Chicago’s “Boyston” is on the north side, Obama is from Hyde Park)
Conversly, now that Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney and Laura Bush are retired from electoral politics and have nothing to lose, they are now getting lauded for their symbolic support of gay marriage.
Cam
The question should be…
Would Obama have even had full civil rights in the country today, if a politician (Lyndon Johnson) hadn’t decided to ignore the supposed political relaity and instead do what was right. Lyndon Johnson said that signing the civil rights bills into law would lose the south for the Democrats for years. Guess, what? He signed them anyway. It’s a shame that today’s politicians do not have integrity. There is no point in electing somebody if all they are going to do is try to do the least amount possible and follow every single poll.
Bush got his agenda passed through a holstil Dem Congress, yet we’re all supposed to believe that this White house can’t get anything done with a majority in both houses? Please.
Cam
@Sean: said..
“@Tim W: I think that if all you care about are gay issues like DADT, ENDA and gay marriage, you’re being extremely selfish and not caring about bigger issues that effect more people. It’s fine to care, very passionately, about these niche issues, but if you lose your sense of political reality, it’s all for nothing.”
_________________
Civil rights is a nitch issue? Wow, you’ve really swallowed the Barney Frank Kool Aide haven’t you? Were Women’s voting rights a niche issue? Was the right of African American’s to own property a niche issue? How sad for you. Without civil rights there are no other issues, but also, remember, if a politician will back down on these “Niche” issues, they’ll back down on anything. Remember the health care public option? Yeah, Obama went down on that one too. Remember pulling out of Iraq? Whether you agree with it or not, that one dissapeared too. Remember shutting down Gitmo?
So you see, if they’ll dodge one issue, they’ll dodge them all.
party everywhere
@Cam:
Cam…You have a good point, but you need to review your history lessons…Lyndon Johnson signed a civil rights bill, but it did not include interacial marriage rights. The Supreme Court made that legal three years later in “Loving v Virginia”
By the way, did Martin Luther King say a single thing about inter-racial marriage in his 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech? No, he did not, because he was pragmatic and knew that bringing up the idea of a black man and white woman getting married would anger white men and endanger the passage of simple employment and voting rights which Johnson signed into law.
CJ
Very good points, CAM.
—
It’s amazing how many politicians are unwilling to stand up for something unless the polls tell them it’s OK to. Although I’m NOT a George Bush fan, he often DID stand up against resistance when he believed strongly about something. Now, whether his ideas or actions were illegal or insane, that’s another matter. But, at least he stood up for what he believed in. Clinton obviously didn’t do this – and Obama ?
I’m not really sure where Obama stands on LGBT equality. Does anyone really know for sure?
Sean
@Cam: Equal marriage and equal voting rights are not the same thing Cam. Yes, they’re both civil rights, but they are not of the same importance. Not even close.
axos
As for “niche issues” – white straight males are not even a majority of the population, yet their issues are the only ones not considered “niche issues”.
B
No. 7 · CJ worte, “‘A better question is, would Barack Obama be president if he still supported same-sex marriage?’ But, he’s already been elected. That was over 18 months ago.”
but while still running for president, Obama said that he opposed Proposition Eight, calling it divisive.” By saying that he was not comfortable with same-sex marriage personally, but opposed constitutional changes outlawing it (in a state where no law outlawing it would have been constitutional), he was merely giving socially conservative voters a reason to not be up in arms against him. It’s the laws and public behavior, not personal (and private) opinion that count.
In addition, he did not become president for life as in the custom in some dictatorships, and if he is not reelected, it may be many more decades before we can reduce the number of socially conservative supreme court judges by appointing more liberal replacements.
My guess is that they’d like to have a vote on issues like DOMA and DADT in November – that gives new Democrats from socially conservative congressional districts and states a better chance of winning (and if they lose, there is no downside for them in voting for gay rights). We need that majority to make more progress in the next few years – enough to have a chance of ending a filibuster.
We may not like the situation, but as Otto von Bismark once said, “Laws are like sausages – it is best not to see them being made.”
Tim W
Sean sorry but the fact I could be fired because I am gay like happened years ago doesn’t make it a niche issue to me. My relationship with my husband of 23 years where he goes into the hospital and I have to worry that a hospital might not let me see him even with power of attorney make it more than a niche issue.
As for those who keep saying we need to support Democrats because they need a majority please. They’ve had a majority all this time and yet nothing.
Bill Perdue
@party everywhere: While Bill Clinton was signing DOMA in 1996 (which I think he needed to do to win a second term), Obama was standing up for us…
Wrong on both counts. Look it up, Clinton was ahead in the polls when he signed DOMA. He signed it because he’s a bigot.
Obama was not ‘standing up to for us’ He wanted our votes and learned that christer bigots outvote us so he switched. He’s a tawdry political hustler just like his mentors Clinton and Bush.
@B: continues to defend everything bigoted and rightwing, in this case Obama’s bigotry in sabotaging the defense of same sex marriage in 2008 with ‘Gawd’s in the mix…” which was used by Yes on 8 to clobber us. That is entirely Obama’s fault. He gave Yes on 8 the ammunition to beat us. We were winning in the Field Poll all summer but after Obama galvanized the bigots, especially member of the catholic, mormon and evangelical cults. The polls reversed and we lost, unexpectedly and unnecessarily.
Obama pandered to the bigot vote to get elected. ‘B’ approves of that bigotry just like he approves of the bigoted antics of Rekers, McCain, der papenfuehrer, Ashburn and Howard Dean.
Luxury
@CJ: Dickey Cheney and Laura Bush are more “progressive” than Obama when it comes to equality. And yet – many here will defend Obama to the death. All because of a little “D” next to his name.
—————————–
You’ve got to be kidding me right? Dick Cheney did not speak up for marriage equality (nor did Laura Bush) while he was the Vice President, he and Bush explicitly ran against it and his own daughter is a Lesbian. Cheney is in the same boat as Obama in being a political coward.
playasinmar
Infographic needed.
B
In No. 21 · Bill Perdue again posted a series of half-truths and lies involving baseless personal attacks.
The fact is that Obama stated his opposition to Proposition Eight on national TV, but he also said something about marriage being between a man and a woman as personal opinion. You simply cannot blame Obama for Proposition Eight – he basically ignored the issue, only saying a few words about it when asked. Let’s be realistic – Obama was running for president and that is more like holding 3 full time jobs, each with long hours.
As to Perdue’s claim that “Clinton was ahead in the polls when he signed DOMA,” being ahead in the polls is not relevant – Clinton was trying to stay ahead in the polls (and more importantly in the election itself) and wanted to diffuse same-sex marriage as a campaign issue. If you want to criticize Clinton for not sacrificing himself over one gay-rights issue, at least state what the likely outcome would have been (including ending up with a president – Clinton’s opponent – who would have been really hostile to gay rights).
For all his criticism of Clinton and Obama, it is rather telling that Bill Perdue has not criticized the people who actually sponsored and introduced DOMA in the House and Senate.
Bill Perdue
‘B’ is a pimp for right wing politicians who pander to the bigot vote like Clinton, McCain, Obama, Ashburn and Dean.
He’s an excuse monger who never met a panderer he didn’t like.
Bill Perdue
@playasinmar: http://www.queerty.com/obama-supported-gay-marriage-12-years-ago-today-not-so-much-20090113/
Black Pegasus
Obama/Biden 2012
**Kick Rocks Haters**
Bill Perdue
@Black Pegasus:
Rather than vote for bigots like Obama, whichever bigot the Republican nominate and the sad assortment of bigots and bigot panderers running for Congress,
On November 2nd, 2010 vote for a leftist party or sit it out.*
On November 4th, 2012 vote for a leftist party or sit it out.*
A Republican is a racist right centrist with a theocrat attached at the hip. A Democrat is a Republican in drag.
With Democrats like this who needs Republicans?
The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons – they’re greedier, they fool more people and they’re able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.
Obama is a bigot and a hater. He sabotaged same sex marriage in 2008. img]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/08/17/us460.jpg[/img]
Biden, the Senator from Bank of America, voted for DOMA. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280
The only people who support Obama at this point do so because they approve of his bigotry.
Bill Perdue
Oops, ()* unless there are important propositions or initiatives on the ballot.
Bill Perdue
Another ‘B’ lie. “For all his criticism of Clinton and Obama, it is rather telling that Bill Perdue has not criticized the people who actually sponsored and introduced DOMA in the House and Senate.”
DOMA passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, 85–14 in the Senate and 342–67 in the House because Clinton championed it. Clinton, a bigot, rushed to sign it within hours on September 21, 1996 and immediately issued campaing ads boasting about it on redneck radio. That’s why ‘B’ admires Clinton.
Obama sabotaged same sex marriage in 2008.
A Republican is a racist right centrist with a theocrat attached at the hip. A Democrat is a Republican in drag.
With Democrats like this who needs Republicans?
The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons – they’re greedier, they fool more people and they’re able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.
[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3376/3185038107_bee36b3f6e.jpg[/img]
Markie-Mark
@B: I right there with you, Bill. I am voting Green from now on. Where is the self respect in voting for someone who is against marriage equality?
Markie-Mark
@Bill Perdue: I think you are probably wasting your time with a lot of people on this site. They will never have the self respect to withhold their votes from a candidate that is against marriage equality. They don’t even care that they are holding the rest of us back with their votes and excuses. But they will become irrelevant (and possibly soon). We will get our constitutional rights through the courts, in spite of Obama and the democrats. And public opinion is swinging our way as well. Additionally, they will become irrelevant because Obama is not running for re-election. He has done such a terrible job that there is no chance he can win again.
B
In No. 30 · Bill Perdue reverts to form and calls the truth a lie.
As is typical of this dishonest character, he talks about “bipartisan support” but the Republicans introduced DOMA: the Democrats merely fell in line for self preservation.
Read http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2009/03/the-legal-challenge-to-doma-the-defense-of-marriage-act-is-filed.html : “That spring, Republicans looking for an issue to use against incumbent President Bill Clinton raised the same-sex marriage issue during the presidential primary campaign season. Picking up on speculation in the press that a victory for same-sex marriage in Hawaii would see same-sex couples streaming to the Aloha State to wed and then returning home to demand that their marriages be reocgnized, the Republicans whipped up national hysteria about marriage policy being dictated to the entire country by the Hawaii courts. The leading Republican presidential candidate, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, introduced the so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ in Congress, and President Clinton, seeking to neutralize the issue, promptly announced his support for it. The statute was enacted shortly before the election.” Note – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act lists Bob Barr as the author. Barr also seems to have introduced it in the House. Apparently Dole did in the Senate. Regardless, it was for political reasons.
What was going on was obvious – Clinton did not want to give the Republicans an advantage, and Dole would have been much worse for gay rights.
Markie-Mark
@B: Are you suggesting that we support politicians that care WAY more about their job than they care about gays, the constitution or what’s right? Is there no accountability? If we keep voting for these selfish scumbags do you think they’ll ever change? Possible book title: The Audacity of Excuses.
Markie-Mark
@B: And, besides, Bill Clinton has already told you that’s it’s gay peoples’ fault that he signed DOMA. Not his fault. It’s gay peopless’ fault.
Bill Perdue
@B: , our resident apologist for everything and everyone who opposes LGBT rights says “Dole would have been much worse for gay rights”.
What could be worse than signing DOMA and DADT?
At least ‘B’, who really should be posting his anti-GLBT nonsense at blogs like gay patriot or free republic instead of here, admits that Clinton and the Democrats are bigot panderers. The difference between ‘B’ and most of us is that he likes bigot pandering because he opposes LGBT equality while we detest it because we want equality.
Bill Perdue
@Markie-Mark: Hi. I don’t argue with ‘B’ or clueless types like Black Pagasus so much as I argue at them to reinforce the growing understanding that we have no – zero, nada, zip – friends in either party.
Republicans look us in the eye and scream ‘Die, Faggot!’. Democrats pat us on the back, smile sweetly and then backstab us. People can argue till hell freezes over about which party is worse but I think our time is better spent building mass actions to expose them, demoralize our enemies, build alliances and above all organize our own communities.
B
No. 34 · Markie-Mark wrote, “@B: Are you suggesting that we support politicians that care WAY more about their job than they care about gays, the constitution or what’s right? Is there no accountability?”
A politician who commits “political suicide” may be noble, but will do you no good whatsoever as he won’t get elected. What I’m suggesting is that you blame the other side, not Clinton: the Republicans authored and introduced DOMA in the hope that Clinton would veto it (which would hardly have made a difference as there were enough votes in DOMA’s favor to override a veto). Instead of blaming Clinton for not committing political suicide when it would not have even made a difference, you should blame the Republicans who created the situation in the first place – they are the ones who wanted to go after gays for political gain.
Then “And, besides, Bill Clinton has already told you that’s it’s gay peoples’ fault that he signed DOMA. Not his fault. It’s gay peopless’ fault.” Care to produce a citation for that? It sounds like anti-Clinton spin. Clinton may have blamed the general level of homophobia in the U.S., but that is not the fault of gays. If you have something from a respectable source, please produce a URL.
B
No. 37 · Bill Perdue wrote, “I don’t argue with ‘B’ or clueless types like Black Pagasus so much as I argue at them to reinforce the growing understanding that we have no – zero, nada, zip – friends in either party.”
What a pile of self-serving BS: what Bill Perdue does is not “argue at” anyone but rather he posts a mindless string of factually challenged insults showing that he is incapable of a civil discussion of any kind.
The facts are that you are better off the with Democrats than the Republicans – at least the Democrats don’t go around installing socially conservative supreme-court justices who will vote against gay rights and aren’t introducing anti-gay legislation as the Republicans have.
And with the way things are right now, a liberal third party, if it got any substantial number of votes, would just ensure that the country was run by “conservatives”, making the situation worse. It’s too bad, but that is the reality and it is silly to pretend otherwise (unless, of course, one is a Republican troll trying to sabotage the opposition, in which case it is simply sleazy).
Republicans must truly love people like Bill Perdue. For different reasons, he is an example of what Lenin called a “useful idiot”.
redd
@REBELComx: I think he’ll pander to us, talk like he’ll change his stance then do nothing.
Bill Perdue
The short history of Obama’s twists and turns regarding same sex marriage…
1996: In response to a questionnaire from Outlines newspaper (now part of Windy City Times), Obama, a candidate for the Illinois state senate seat representing the wealthy Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, writes, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”
1998: Responding to an Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test: “Q: Do you believe that the Illinois government should recognize same-sex marriages? A: Undecided.”
2004: In an interview with Windy City Times, Obama mentions the religious dimension of the gay marriage debate, says he supports civil unions, and indicates that his stance is dictated in large part by political strategy…
2006: In his bestseller, The Audacity of Hope, Obama, now a U.S. senator, explains his support for civil unions, again mentioning religion and noting the strategic problems that the push for gay marriage poses.
2008: At Rick Warrens bigotfest Obama said ” For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God’s in the mix…” Barak Obama, bigot
Obama’s position on same-sex marriage is the same as the one Miss California, Carrie Prejean, took a lot of heat for.
“I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman,” she said at the Miss USA pageant last month.” Carrie Prejean, bigot
In an interview with MTV, Obama says he opposes Prop 8, but also gay marriage. Civil unions, the candidate says, are sufficient: “I have stated my opposition to [Prop 8]. I think it is unnecessary. I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage…” Barak Obama, bigot
2010 : After the Perry decision, which struck down Prop 8, the White House releases this statement: “The president has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.” Meanwhile, White House senior adviser David Axelrod tells MSNBC that Obama “ does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples. … He supports civil unions. That’s been his position throughout. So nothing has changed.”
from http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/77120/what-does-obama-really-think-about-gay-marriage-telling-timeline and other sources
Bill Perdue
‘B’, with tinfoil beanie firmly fitted tells us that “The facts are that you are better off the with Democrats than the Republicans – at least the Democrats don’t go around installing socially conservative supreme-court justices who will vote against gay rights and aren’t introducing anti-gay legislation as the Republicans have.”
He omits the fact that it was Republican dominated courts who knocked down sodomy laws and permitted same sex marriage in Massachusetts and California. Just as he omits the fact that he defends Republicans like McCain and Ashburn and Republican-lite types like Clinton, Obama and Dean.
It’s not important to have a ‘civil discussion’ with a quisling who never met a bigot he didn’t like. It is important to expose them, which is what dozens of honest activists have done to you in thread after thread about Rekers, der Papenfuehrer, Dean, Ashburn, Obama’s concessions on DADT and McCain.
Joey
@Sean: Agreed. Its insulting when my fellow gays compare them.
Joey
@Bill Perdue: What are you talking about? The courts in MA and CA are not Republican dominated at all. They are the #2 and #3 most liberal courts by appointees, respectively.
Bill Perdue
@Joey: Most of their members were appointed by Republican Governors. Look it up, it’s pretty common knowledge.
Pip
Its a good thing we chose a Democrat who’s all about change, and doesn’t make any decisions based on political expediency! *ahem*
Tim W
Now I am not in the same place as Bill. I don’t ultimately believe they are bigots. I believe they are spineless weasels who are afraid to show any real political courage. I said this before and I’ll say it again for those who ask why we don’t go after Republicans. It’s like in your personal life if someone who is your friend goes and does something to disparage you or work against you you are going to come down on them much harder than someone you consider an enemy. You know the enemy is out to get you and he owes nothing. A friend on the other hand if they are a true friend doesn’t stab you in the back or throw you under the bus if they are truly a friend.
B, I am sick of the scare tactics that Democrats and people like you use to keep us in our places. This is why we find ourselves where we are. It’s because Democrats have no incentive to move our agenda forward because we blindly vote for them and give them money. It’s like a bad employee. If you keep on giving raises even though they are doing a bad job there’s no reason to change their behavior. It’s time to send the Democrats a message.
Bill Perdue
@Tim W: You can’t define bigotry simply by what people, especially politicians and ‘religious’ figures say. Their careers begin and end with lies. Politicians and all but a few lawyers are members of the world’s second oldest profession and cult leaders are simply parasites. They’re functional bigots irrespective of their ‘secret’ good will or their ‘fierce’ promises..
It’s more realistic to define the role of politicians and cult leaders by what they do. Our agenda is not a fight for ‘special privileges’. Essentially it’s centered on shielding ourselves from the effects of pervasive intolerance, harassment, bullying and the occasional but ever present threat of violence. Those who refuse tp support our agenda support discrimination, and I think we should describe them as bigots and tell people why.
Bill Clinton is a good example. In 1992, in a three way race with Perot and Bush1 Clinton desperately needed votes and was the first major party candidate to cultivate the GLBT vote in a big way. He called for hope, change and promised what we now call a fierce defense. Within months he caved on DADT and signed military bigotry into federal law. In 1996 he championed DOMA, signed it and boasted about it in election ads. He remained a bitter opponent of same sex marriage until very recently when it became clear to him that most of us think of him as a bigot. Now he wants forgiveness.
Like most lawyers and all politicians he’s been trained to ignore what’s true and what isn’t and concentrate on winning.
Caveat emptor. Especially when you’re dealing with Democrats. The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons – they’re greedier, they fool more people and they’re able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.
Robert in NYC
Well said, Bill, No. 48. I thoroughly agree with you.
Tim W. No. 47, I do agree LGBT people need to send a message to the Democrats especially Obama who as Bill says IS a bigot if you look at his track record on marriage equality for starters. Here you have him saying that he believes in equality for LGBT people yet he opposes full equality by supporting the ban on same-sex civil marriage. He even believes that there is a religious connection to civil marriage, go figure that one out. Something is wrong with that equation. He’s learned NOTHING from the civil rights movement and totally out of touch with what full equality is all about. He’s supposed to be a constitutional scholar, well now….for the sake of political expediency, he’s completely ignored the 14th amendment wherein the rights of the minority must be guaranteed and protected. His penchant for granting civil unions at the federal level is nothing more than legally sanctioned segregation of the worst kind. Obama IS a bigot on that alone! How can anyone say he is not? Of all people, he should know better. Instead, he kow-tows to the religious cults who run rough shod over our freedoms and rights. Since when do cults trump civil rights? His endorsement of those cults including many in his party, putting religious beliefs ahead of the rights of a minority is nothing more than sheer bigotry in order to gain votes and win elections. Its nothing but that.
B
In No. 42, Bill Perdue proves himself to be an infant using phrases like “with tinfoil beanie firmly fitted” merely to further his personal grudge.
Then he goes on to claim, “He omits the fact that it was Republican dominated courts who knocked down sodomy laws and permitted same sex marriage in Massachusetts and California. Just as he omits the fact that he defends Republicans like McCain and Ashburn and Republican-lite types like Clinton, Obama and Dean.”
The facts are that the “Republican dominated courts” he is referring to (it is really “courts dominated by Republican appointees” but accuracy is not one of Bill Perdue’s strong points) usually make split decisions with a slim majority in our favor and with all the more liberal jurists on our side. The more appointees you get from Republicans, the worse we do on the average, particularly considering that the Republican Party has become far more homophobic in the last 20 years than previously due to its attempt to appeal to social conservatives. It’s the people they would appoint today that we have to consider, not those who would have been acceptable in the distant past – before the religious right wing became the “Republican base”.
Second, Perdue is lying about McCain and Ashburn (and to some extent about Obama, Clinton, and Dean). It’s hardly defending Ashburn to call him ineffective. It’s not defending McCain to point out that with an openly gay staffer helping to run his campaigns, McCain’s homophobic positions probably reflect what he thinks will get him elected than his personal beliefs. That’s not defending McCain – it is calling him unprincipled. I never defended Dean at all – I merely pointed out that he was most likely trying to diffuse something as a political issue. Noting when that is going on is simply giving a fair account – it is typical behavior for a politician.
Similarly, I clearly indicated that Clinton was simply trying to get elected. He did not “champion” DOMA – if the Republicans had decided to drop the idea, Clinton wouldn’t have said a word. He merely saw the writing on the proverbial wall, held his nose, and signed the bill, perhaps bragging a bit about that to help win the election. Had he vetoed it, the Republicans would have used that against him and there were enough votes to override a veto anyway. Then we would have had Dole (who really did support DOMA) as a president. As to “defending” Obama, I actually suggested waiting to see if he signs a bill overturning DOMA before criticizing him on it. That’s simply a more definitive test, and he did sign some gay-friendly legislation. Do you think McCain would have given that he’s been seen appealing to the homophobe vote to get re-elected?
Brutus
@Bill Perdue: “we have no – zero, nada, zip – friends in either party.”
Last time I checked, Tom Duane, Dennis Kucinich, Kirsten Gillibrand, and others are all still Democrats. But apparently you don’t consider them friends.
Brutus
@Bill Perdue: Good God, do you keep a Word document around with previous posts in it? Because many of your posts use identical language, as if you’re merely copying and pasting like a troll. “Looter rich,” blah blah blah. Fine, so if the Democrats are so great for the “looter rich” and you don’t like that, why don’t you go vote Republican?
Brutus
@Robert in NYC: I love when laypeople pretend to understand the Constitution better than scholars. The 14th Amendment is far from an absolute directive to protect and shield every minority. There are many nuances to the way it works. And there’s nothing necessarily “segregative” about calling same sex partnerships “civil unions” and opposite-sex partnerships “marriages” on a form somewhere, so long as both have equal functional rights. You’re not being bodily made to sit outside the classroom, or at a different lunch table, or to use a different water fountain or at the back of the bus. It’s a mere naming convention, with no physical aspect. You’re even free, under the First Amendment, to call both “marriage” in everyday speech.
Now I encourage you to scroll back up through Bill Perdue’s posts, where he highlights all the portions of Obama’s record where he says he opposes same-sex marriage, and read the portions right next to the highlighted portions, where he says he fully supports equality via civil union. Apparently he even fails at being a bigot. Poor guy just can’t do anything right.
Ronbo
Clinton COULD have been up in the category with Abraham Lincon, only he was (in action, not talk) a mild Republican. Clinton is conservative.
Obama is worse because now we have a majority of American behind us and he is fighting against us. Obama is extremely conservative – much more so than Nixon or Reagan.
We need to keep in mind that 30 years ago, Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine and since, we’ve been spoon-fed misinformation that keeps pushing our politicians to the right. Americans hold “liberal” views on issues across the board; however, Americans are so scared shitless of being called liberal that only about 20% will use the “L-word”.
Do you think the Pussies on this board (average age of what? 16) have any concept or understanding of debate or balanced discussion? Hell, they’ve heard FOX is “fair and ballanced” so many times, that they don’t even believe in evolution.
We are all Kansas, now. (I just threw up into my mouth)
Bill Perdue
@Brutus: Members of a party defined by it’s bigotry – DADT, DOMA, no ENDA – etc. are our enemies. They need to get out of the Democrat party if they want to be taken seriously.
@Brutus:a troll is someone like you who flags answers they disagree with. If you can’t take the heat, little man, get out…
Markie-Mark
@Bill Perdue: It’s people like B and Brutus that are holding us back. They need to get out of the way and let us pursue equality. They don’t want equality for themselves and they don’t want us to have it. They are selfish and mean.
Bill Perdue
@Markie-Mark: I suspect that very few people pay attention to them, much less get swayed by them.
The ones who really stand in the way of equality are HRC, Stonewall Democrats, Log Canin and GOP Proud.
jason
Obama is a fraud in every sense of the word. There is real reason to believe that he’s a Moslem.
Robert in NYC
So Brutus, how do you think straights would feel if marriage was replaced with civil unions for all, assuming you think both are equal? As a matter of fact, civil unions in NJ were deemed unequal because in spite of the law, gay couples with just such a union were and are still discriminated against. Some employers, among others, have deliberately ignored the state law which is why marriage equality became an issue in that state with little or no prosecution of any of the offenders. Why do you think 10 countries have abandoned them, a number that will continue to grow? This is about religious bigotry in the mix and the last time I attended a civil marriage ceremony, I’ve attended several, there was no invocation or reference to any religion or deity, strictly a civil matter, vastly different from the religious ceremony. Bill Perdue is absolutely right on!
If civil unions are so equal, why call them something different, they don’t even provide “divorce” if a relationship ends but its dissolved instead. This is not a question of semantics, the two types of unions are vastly different in the way they are executed. Giving one specific group of people similar rights under a different name sends a message to society that they are different and should be treated differently which can translate into not regarding their relationships as valid as theirs, simply because they are the majority or taken that seriously either. I sense a degree of self-loathing when gay people who don’t want marriage but support being apart from the rest of society in a different union, a union that will NEVER be the universal gold standard anywhere in the world. 10 countries have proved it already, a trend that will continue. You’ll be on the wrong side of history as will Obama or any party that sanctions discrimination under different names. This is nothing more than bigotry and kow-towing to religious cults who have no right to dictate which group of people should be discriminated against, and their children in turn, for those who have them.
Robert in NYC
No. 56, Markie-Mark, the Republican Party of NO doesn’t want DADT or DOMA repealed. Have you noticed that there are NO gay speakers represented at their conventions, not one reference to equality either. Was Guerrero allowed to address equality at the last Bush convention? NO! They think that just because a handful of “activist” republican judges in Massachusetts made marriage equality happen with just a majority of one more vote is indicative of their party and take credit for it. Its more about political expediency than anything else. They’ll sell their souls to keep their jobs or get re-elected. Few of them in either party are prepared to stick their necks out and do the right thing, because their careers and the lust for power are far more important than their constituents.
Robert in NYC
No. 56, Markie-Mark, the Republican Party of NO doesn’t want DADT or DOMA repealed or ENDA enacted. Have you noticed that there are NO gay speakers represented at their conventions, not one reference to equality either. Was Guerrero allowed to address equality at the last Bush convention? NO! They think that just because a handful of “activist” republican judges in Massachusetts made marriage equality happen with just a majority of one more vote is indicative of their party and take credit for it. Its more about political expediency than anything else. They’ll sell their souls to keep their jobs or get re-elected. Few of them in either party are prepared to stick their necks out and do the right thing, because their careers and the lust for power are far more important than their constituents.
B
No. 56 · Markie-Mark wrote, “@Bill Perdue: It’s people like B and Brutus that are holding us back.”
If you are not Bill Perdue’s “sockpuppet”, you qualify as yet another idiot: neither ‘Brutus’ nor I are holding you back from doing anything. We are simply posting opinions on a web site.
However, if your idea of progress is to shoot yourself in the foot by alienating people who could help you, you really will be holding back progress on gay rights. Contrary to the hallucinations of some, President Obama is not your enemy. He’s signed some pro-gay legislation already, and he does not have the legal authority to introduce legislation on his own. He did not support Proposition Eight, but McCain did, yet none of you give McCain any criticism for that. Why? It’s a reasonable question in light of the fact that McCain personally has more political power to get DOMA and DADT repealed than President Obama does, a consequence of the Senate rules regarding ending a filibuster.
Markie-Mark
@B: “as a Christian, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.” If you find that acceptable, good for you. I do not.
Bill Perdue
Obama is a religious bigot.
Pip
@Markie-Mark: As an American I believe the government’s laws shouldn’t curtail to any religion, and should fundamentally look at citizens without consideration of a ‘higher power.’ Therefore, anyone’s beliefs ‘as a Christian’ or a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist are total bullshit, and irrelevant to the ultimate decision of whether or not there should be gay marriage. As someone who likes cake, I believe all Americans should be granted equal rights regardless of sexual orientation. Cake is more important than Jesus, so therefore I’m right and you’re wrong.
Markie-Mark
@Pip: Sorry for the confusion. I was quoting Obama who said: “As a Christian I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.” That is the quote that the Pro-H8 people used in California, so I thought everyone knew that those were Obama’s words. BUT, I agree with you 100% that cake is WAY more important than Jesus. And, as such, you are right and Obama is wrong. Thanks!
Pip
@Markie-Mark: haha yeah. actually i didnt even mean to address you. i was basically talking into the ether.
B
o. 63 · Markie-Mark wrote, “@B: ‘as a Christian, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.’ If you find that acceptable, good for you. I do not.”
… I don’t care what he believes as a “Christian”, but rather what he’ll do in the Oval Office. He called Proposition Eight divisive and opposed it, but without Proposition Eight, gays would still be able to marry each other in California. I.e., he was suggesting that private religious beliefs are not to be the basis for public policy – we don’t take rights away from someone to satisfy some third party’s religious convictions.
Given that, I assumed that what he “believed as a Christian” was simply marketing to diffuse opposition from some Christian voters. Also, as a lawyer by training, he is well aware of the concept of “separation of church and state”, and he indicated that the state should not ban same-sex marriages. By contrast, McCain stated that he was in favor of Proposition Eight. The choice between the two was a no-brainer.
B
No. 66 · Markie-Mark wrote, “@Pip: Sorry for the confusion. I was quoting Obama who said: ‘As a Christian I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.'”
… it’s an out-of-context quote.
See http://www.queerty.com/obama-prop-8-unnecessary-but-doesnt-believe-in-gay-marriage-20081103/ which has a video of him stating his opposition to Proposition Eight. It includes the “man and a woman” quote but it also qualifies that considerably, distinguishing religious beliefs from what should be in a constitution.
He’s also said that marriage has historically been handled by the states, implying that the federal government should stay out of the issue (e.g., not have laws like DOMA or try to pass constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriages).
Bill Perdue
@B: The video establishes four things.
1) Obama is a biogt, a religious bigot.
2) His only objection to Prop 8 is a tactical objection. He said it was unnecessary becasue bigot Bill Clintons DOMA was, as is, despite Obama’s promises, the bigoted law of the land.
3) Obama, like Hillary Clinton and other assorted Democrat and Republican rightwingers is for settling this on a state by state basis, a “states rights” strategy. States rights, lest we forget, has been a favored Democrat strategy from the time of Jefferson Davis thru George Wallace and is now the Democrats way of avoiding the fight for same sex marriage.
4) Obama is our political enemy.
It also establishes that ‘B’, not the quote, is out of context. This is a GLBT forum. He should be blogging the free republic or gay patriot. They’d be happy to have him.
Robert in NYC
No. 70, Bill….exactly right on about that!
What many seem to forget is, Obama made it quite clear on numerous occasions that he is not for same-sex marriage but….for civil unions at the federal level. He also believes such unions are equal, but ignores the fact that they are separate…..nothing learned from the civil rights march during the 60s, again religion having a hand in all this. He also said that there is a religious connection to civil marriage. How he arrives at that is beyond me. What he’s doing is nothing more than avoiding a confrontation with the religous bigots of all persuasions, in fact kow-towing to them, its part of the democratic and republic m.o. to win votes at our expense. In this country, religious beliefs are allowed to trample on the rights of a minority; no politician worth his salt could run as an atheist and get elected. Religious cult affiliation is a litmus test in the American political system and in the psyche of the dumb electorate, especially those on the right and center. Leaving marriage equality to the states is futile. There will NEVER be same-sex marriage in every state for decades, maybe centuries, if that is the strategy, not while religion is allowed to run rough-shod over us and persistently meddles in the political process to effect the outcome of legislation. Prop. H8 was a classic example of that, ditto Maine, New York and New Jersey.
B
No. 70 · Bill Perdue made a series of unsubstantiated and false allegations. First, Obama is simply not a bigot – his official position is that he favors civil unions over same-sex marriages as long as gays and lesbians get the same rights, and bigots (religious or not) don’t want gays and lesbians to have the same rights. Second, there is not one shred of evidence that his objection of Proposition Eight was tactical – if anything he had a tactical reason for ignoring Proposition Eight completely as talking about it would have been a distraction from the economic crisis. Third, he’s stated that he wants DOMA repealed and that marriage is traditionally handled by the states, not by the federal government. So, his statements imply that he would not try to do anything to prevent states from allowing same-sex marriages.
Fourth, Perdue’s claim about “states rights” is a bit muddled – a “states rights” issue was used by Thomas Jefferson in regard to a disagreement with Alexander Hamilton over whether the U.S. should have a national bank, but also reflected the idea that the U.S. was too large to be managed by a central government
(communication at the time was by mail transported at very low speed). Also, a “states rights” argument was used to oppose the repressive Alien and Sedition Act. It was only much later that the phrase “states rights” was used to justify slavery. Obama claimed that states have historically been responsible for laws regarding marriage and saw no reason to change that. The federal government, however, is responsible for preventing states from denying their residents equal protection under the law.
Fifth, the idea that “Obama is our political enemy” is simply a conspiracy theory with no factual basis. He’s already signed some pro-LGBT legislation.
Then, reverting to his usual childish arguments, Perdue says “This is a GLBT forum. [B] should be blogging the free republic or gay patriot.” It is perfectly legitimate on an GLBT forum to discuss who one’s real enemies and friends are and not accept Bill Perdue’s word for it as it is just plain stupid to declare your friends to be your enemies, which is what Perdue wants everyone to do.
Regarding No. 71 · Robert in NYC – while Obama says he personally prefers civil unions, he made it very clear that he opposed Proposition Eight because constitutions should not be changed to deny rights to people. He’s basically telling the religious folks that he respects their beliefs, but that their beliefs cannot be hardwired into the laws of a country that respects a separation between church and state. I.e., personal religious beliefs do not determine public policy.
Robert, NYC
B, No. 72. So what if bigots and others don’t want us to have civil marriage equality. Giving similar rights to only one group in the country under a different name has NOTHING to do with equality. Just try selling civil unions to straights instead of marriage and I think we all know what the answer would be. Separate is NEVER equal, ten countries have just proved that, they can’t all be wrong and you and Obama included should ask yourselves why. The UK will be next now that the Liberal Democrats and some in the Labour Party have come to the realization that civil partnerships are NOT equal and should be upgraded to full civil marriage equality. That he equates civil marriage with the religious is nothing more than hypocrisy and an easy way out for him to avoid the marriage issue. He IS a bigot for saying that civil unions are equal, they’re not and I don’t think Dr. Martin Luther King would think so either, his wife Corretta certainly didn’t. Back in 1996 he supported it, now he doesn’t just so he could get elected. Well, that’s a copout and its nothing more than cowardice. He’s never stuck his neck out for us. So what, he’s thrown us a few measly crumbs, nothing that substantial and limited at best. DADT and DOMA are not yet overturned and absolutely NO reason why the former couldn’t be right now, and ENDA still languishes. Leaving marriage equality to the states will NEVER bring about full equality in all 50 states, not in our lifetime, maybe never, not while religion is in the mix. The system doesn’t work for us.
Bill Perdue
Opposition to same sex marriage is bigotry.
Stick to chasing ambulances ‘B’ and blog where your attempts to portray Obama, Ashburn, Rekers, Clinton, McCain, Mehlman and der papenfuehrer as our friends will be appreciated.
B
No. 73 · Robert, NYC wrote, “B, No. 72. So what if bigots and others don’t want us to have civil marriage equality.”
… I think Judge Walker may have handled that issue rather nicely, and hopefully higher courts will agree with him.
BTW, Obama did not say that civil unions are automatically equal. Read http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/09/obama_argues_for_civil_unions.php (while he was starting to run for president): “‘If we have a situation in which civil unions are fully enforced, are widely recognized, people have civil rights under the law, then my sense is that’s enormous progress,’ the Illinois Democrat said.”
Note the term “fully enforced” – he was stating that he was in favor of equal rights in practice, with any difference between a civil union and a marriage being purely a semantic one. In Obama’s own words: “Semantics may be important to some. From my perspective, what I’m interested (in) is making sure that those legal rights are available to people.”
Of course you have every right to disagree with his statement (I don’t agree with it either – no matter what the law says and no matter how fully enforced, people will still be treated differently in practice, if only on a personal level), but what he is saying does not suggest bigotry. Rather, I suspect his belief is based on what he thought (at the time) was reasonably achievable – a president can’t make unilateral decisions when “congress is in the mix” (to paraphrase an Obama quote often mentioned by some).
BTW, “separate but equal” sometimes does work when “separate” is purely a difference in terminology. For example, California’s vehicle code does not consider bicycles to be vehicles, but gives the operator of a bicycle the same rights and responsibilities as the driver of a vehicle when a bicycle is operated on a roadway. Some people make a similar argument to yours that this wording is discriminatory, but in practice, it just automatically exempts bicycles from a series of rules about vehicles involving administrative requirements such as vehicle registration. Curiously, some of the people who view this distinction regarding transportation modes as discriminatory issue such extreme rants on the subject that they make certain people posting on this thread look reasonable by comparison.
B
In No. 74 Bill Perdue furthers his vendetta, repeating the same silly statement about ambulances that he posted on http://www.queerty.com/did-olson-boies-just-secure-the-death-of-prop-8-20100617/comment-page-3/#comment-340828 (Comment No 144 on that thread) and http://www.queerty.com/bothersome-gay-activists-didnt-make-obamas-worst-parts-of-presidency-list-20100729/comment-page-3/#comment-340827 (No 102 on that thread).
As to Bill Perdue’s statement, “Opposition to same sex marriage is bigotry,” that is simply factually wrong. Opposition to same-sex marriage may be the result of bigotry, but is not necessarily the result of bigotry as there can be other causes including the opposition being a mere pragmatic opinion about what is currently achievable and whether or not civil unions are sufficient. Similar it is possible to support same-sex marriage and still be homophobic and bigoted against gays: for example, some homophobic non-Mormon living in Utah who is mad about restrictions on the sale of alcohol (bars cannot sell it after 1 AM) and who is in favor of same-sex marriage simply to piss off the Mormon Church.
What Perdue cannot seem to understand is that there are people who are not bigoted and who oppose same-sex marriage: being wrong is not the same as being bigoted. When the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22 (the predecessor to Proposition Eight), the decision pointed out that even with equal legal rights, if a perspective employer knows that an applicant is in a civil union instead of a marriage, that can be taken as an indication that the applicant is gay, and may provide an opportunity for discrimination (in terms of hiding the real reason, its easier to not hire a person out of bigotry than to fire him because of it). This argument, however, is not obvious a priori – someone had to really think about the issue to notice that point. Even with that statement by the California Supreme Court, it would have been possible to get around that objection by requiring that businesses only ask employees if they are married or in a civil union, but not ask which, and that if an employer does ask “which”, an employee or a person applying for a position has a right to give either answer. The counter argument is that the law then becomes needlessly complicated, but “needlessly complicated” is a judgment call. Given all that, someone who only partly thought the issue through could easily come to the wrong conclusion, but making a mistake is not the same as being a bigot.
So, by going around calling people who might actually be one’s friends “bigots”, Bill Perdue is really telling us to alienate potential friends – a good way of ensuring that we lose in the long term.
Bill Perdue
Opposition to same sex marriage is bigotry. Only the self loathers fail to see that.
Robert in NYC
B, do you really think there are many homophobic bigots supporting same-sex marriage, among other things? I only know of one Glen Beck although what he said was that he doesn’t think it harms the country. Explain then why the GOP ovewhelmingly supports a ban on it as do most of its supporters? Where do you think this opposition to marriage equality comes from? I know…..its religion. Using one’s personal religious beliefs to justify the nonsensical red herring about one man one woman procreation mantra is nothing more than bigotry at best. There are millions of heterosexual married couples around the world who choose not to procreate and many who can’t. Maybe those foes of marriage equality should also support a ban on them too. This IS bigotry, nothing more. Obama connects civil marriage to religion and believes in legal segregation of gay couples in the belief that offering something less than marriage is equal. Hypothetically speaking, how do you think straights would react if they were told they couldn’t marry but could enter into a civil union, or that interracial marriage was still the law of the land? Civil unions are morally wrong and do NOT address full equality by any stretch of the imagination. Obama of all people should be ashamed of himself for supporting it based on his religious beliefs for fear of upsetting religious cults who do nothing but trample on our rights for full equality and justice. Segregation of any kind is wrong in what is supposed to be a democracy. Ten countries have already proved it, a trend that will continue to grow. America won’t be among them unfortunatley, not while religious bigtory runs rough-shod over us aided and abetted by whoever occupies the White House, democrat or republican. This IS about bigotry!
Robert in NYC
B, do you really think there are many homophobic bigots supporting same-sex marriage, among other things? Do you honestly believe they can be persuaded by having dialog with them? This is the same mindset of the Log Cabin group which believes that it can change the GOP from within. Why is there no room for equality issues on their platform? I’ve listened to their convention speeches, equality isn’t on the radar nor are any significant gay representatives given the microphone. They oppose just about everything including the repeal of DADT, DOMA and enactdment of ENDA, including a handful of democrats. Explain then why the GOP ovewhelmingly supports a ban on marriage equality as do most of its supporters? Where do you think this opposition comes from? I know…..its religious bigotry. Using one’s personal religious beliefs to justify the nonsensical red herring about one man one woman procreation mantra is nothing more than bigotry at best. There are millions of heterosexual married couples around the world who choose not to procreate and many who can’t. Issuing a marriage license has absolutely nothing to do with procreation nor is it a prerequisite, nor is it a primary reason to marry. Maybe those foes of marriage equality should also support a ban on them too and ban divorce while they’re at it. This IS bigotry, nothing more. Obama connects civil marriage to religion and believes in legal segregation of gay couples in the belief that offering something less than marriage is equal.
Hypothetically speaking, how do you think straights would react if they were told they couldn’t marry but could enter into a civil union, or that interracial marriage was still the law of the land? Civil unions are morally wrong and do NOT address full equality by any stretch of the imagination. Obama of all people should be ashamed of himself for supporting it based on his religious beliefs for fear of upsetting religious cults who do nothing but trample on our rights for full equality and justice. Segregation of any kind is wrong in what is supposed to be a democracy. Ten countries have already proved it, a trend that will continue to grow. America won’t be among them unfortunately, not while religious bigtory runs rough-shod over us aided and abetted by whoever occupies the White House, democrat or republican.
B
In No. 77 · Bill Perdue, not having a valid argument, resorts to an ad hominem one calling anyone who disagrees with him a “self loather”.
Bill Perdue
Opposition to same sex marriage is bigotry. Only self loathers fail to see that.
B
Re No. 78 & 79, Robert in NYC: Robert, you missed the point. I was showing the logical errors in a certain poster’s claim that
“opposition to same-sex marriage is bigotry.” I gave a counter example, pointing out that it is possible to be bigoted against LGBT people and still support same-sex marriage. It doesn’t matter how many would think that – the possibility indicates that the two are not equivalent. I also gave a counter example of a person who opposed same-sex marriage (at least, trying to get it today) on pragmatic grounds – what you can get through congress. Such an opinion is similarly not bigotry, so the statement the other poster made was in fact refuted. It doesn’t matter how many people fit these cases because the possibility alone refutes the argument: I would not have objected if the other poster had merely said, “some [maybe most] people who oppose same-sex marriages are bigoted.” (Making it “most” requires some statistical data to back up the claim – you can’t just trot out the bigot du jour).
As to where the opposition to same-sex marriage comes from, if you mean the GOP’s opposition, it comes from the marketing department, which (after reading tea leaves and doing some focus group studies) figured that opposing same-sex marriage would play well with the “social conservatives” the GOP now counts on to win elections. It’s simply pandering which is why the push for constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage was so closely correlated in time with national elections. As public opposition to same-sex marriage drops, the GOP’s opposition will drop along with it (although they may simply keep quiet since they still want the social-conservatives’ votes).
Obama, BTW, opposed Proposition Eight and wants DOMA repealed, and also stated that marriage is traditionally handled by the states, not the federal government, so it is obvious that he is not going to do anything that would prohibit same-sex marriages.
According to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/obama-administration-doma_n_260969.html the Obama adminstration filed court papers stating that it supports repealing DOMA even as the DoJ argued that DOMA is constitutional – being constitutional does not mean a law is sound policy. You generally don’t file court papers if you don’t mean what you say.
BTW, you are overstating your case when you say “civil unions are morally wrong” as you can devise them in a perfectly acceptable way: First you change all the laws to replace “marriage” with “civil union” and then add a law that says that
a marriage is a civil union, that both convey the same rights and responsibilities, and that a business or institution can inquire as to whether a customer, employee, or applicant is in a marriage or a civil union, but cannot inquire in such a way as to distinguish between the two. States can then issue marriage licenses for everyone or “marriage / civil union licenses” if they want to pretend that “marriage is between a man and a woman”, but in the latter case, it would be purely a semantic distinction with no impact in practice. Everyone would quickly get tired of saying “marriage / civil union license” and simply call it a “marriage license” informally. Now, you may find this a bit awkward or silly, but it is possible to do and is hardly “morally wrong”.
Robert in NYC
B, No. 82, no matter how you skew it, having similar rights under a different name is wrong. This isn’t a question of semantics, its how civil unions/partnerships are perceived by the industrialized world at large. Civil unions will NEVER be the universal gold standard for same-sex couples, its just not going to happen. If civil unions or partnerships as they’re called in the UK are so equal or as good as marriage, then why aren’t they called just that? Why separate them just to avoid offending religious bigots who have no business using their beliefs to relegate us to second class citizens in what is purely a civil matter? That’s a lame excuse either way. Why have ten countries abandoned them? Ask yourself that. They can’t all be wrong and obviously they see there is a difference between a marriage and a civil union while our own successive governments and others who think like them do not. This IS about bigotry and religion is at the heart of it, plain and simple. Bill Perdue is right about that.
B
No. 83 · Robert in NYC wrote, “B, No. 82, no matter how you skew it, having similar rights under a different name is wrong.”
… I clearly indicated identical rights, down to filling out the same license form, with a ‘marriage’ being a type of civil union, and where, with an exception for practicing a religion, no organization is allowed to ask whether a customer or employee or applicant is in a marriage versus a civil union and is not allowed to treat anyone differently based on a distinction between the two. To help enforce that, you can have a rule that says that, if a person is asked if he is married rather than married or in a civil union, he/she has a legal right to say, “yes” if in a civil union.
I don’t think such an arrangement is “wrong” – it is just a silly distinction that amounts to a difference in word usage, with the phrase “marriage / civil union” being like “last will and testament” that today is simply redundant. Personally I’d prefer to just use the word “marriage”, but I don’t think
other approaches for getting the same rights are wrong so much as overly complicated and convoluted.
Used in this sense, “civil union” really means “civil marriage”, but grammatically “civil marriage” doesn’t work if “marriage” refers to only certain types of civil marriages – usually an adjective restricts a noun in some way. It reduces the argument about marriage to something akin to whether we should have different words for different types of snow (the Eskimos do whereas we use a single word but modify it with adjectives or phrases, but skiers sometimes using different words such as
“powder” because, like Eskimos, the distinctions are important to them).
Also, the homophobic faction has been trying to spin their arguments as protecting the “definition” of marriage, but we
all know that their real goal is different. If we actually tried what I suggested as a possibility, that puts them in the awkward
position of having to admit that their “definition” statement was really just marketing to hide their real agenda. Hopefully, however, Judge Walker’s ruling will be upheld on appeal, making the issue moot in California, and hopefully influencing decisions nationwide.