QuotePresident Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.
In an interview with ABC News' Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an "evolution" that led him to this decision, based on conversations with his staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and his wife and daughters.
The rest at the link:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-comes-out-i-think-same-sex-couples-should-be-able-to-get-married/
Way to go, POTUS! It's about time!
I think the state should have no say in what consenting adults can do with their love lives. I think it's sick the homosexual community needs state approval to enter into a matrimonial contract.
I suppose it's better than than preventing it though...
Quote from: Amicale on May 09, 2012, 09:26:44 PM
QuotePresident Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.
In an interview with ABC News' Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an "evolution" that led him to this decision, based on conversations with his staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and his wife and daughters.
The rest at the link:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-comes-out-i-think-same-sex-couples-should-be-able-to-get-married/
Way to go, POTUS! It's about time!
It is an election year...
Yeah, it's an election year. And what he said might definitely get him more votes. Especially if he follows through and does something about it. I know that some people object to the government having any say in who we marry, but whether we like the system or not, it wasn't so long ago that the Church had total control of marriage rather than the government. At least now, it is for the most part a civil institution. We can't marry ourselves 'legally' in any country I know of, whether we're gay or straight, so... *shrug*
And even if he is pandering for votes, well, if same sex marriage got passed nationwide, I wouldn't see that as a bad thing at all. It's what a LOT of people are fighting for. Shame it takes an election year to get the ball rolling, but if that's what it takes, then...
When I said 'it's about time', I mostly meant it like 'it's about time the USA catches up with Canada!' ;) It's just embarrassing that we legalized it first. I mean, now straight people and gay people here are entering into marriages, with the exact same equal chance of paying taxes, raising kids, getting benefits, and either staying happy or becoming miserable. ;D
Finally!
It's an flat out embarrassment to have a president who is opposed to same-sex marriage. So I'm glad he came around publicly.
Now do something about it. North Carolina just got hit hard with an awful amendment. It's time to put an end to this bull.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 09, 2012, 09:30:37 PM
I think the state should have no say in what consenting adults can do with their love lives. I think it's sick the homosexual community needs state approval to enter into a matrimonial contract.
I suppose it's better than than preventing it though...
I agree.
Unless someone harms society (murderers, etc) people over age of 18 should do whatever the fuck they want. (as long as its consentsual.)
I am happily shocked that he came out and said it during an election year. Honestly, it could also hurt him at the polls just as easily. A lot of the swing states that he needs to win include places like North Carolina and the other 29 states that ban gay marriage. It's politically risky, and I'm fairly certain this wouldn't have come up had VP Biden not opened up about what he really thinks, as he often does. I love Joe Biden :)
But taking a step back, it feels fucking awesome to know my President said this, especially when I think of all of my friends and family who are gay. Bravo Mr. President.
Yes, it is definitely about time. I'm glad he finally came around and had the guts to say this, but I'm really disappointed that he's stated that recognition and legalization of gay marriages should be up to each state:
QuoteThe president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states' deciding the issue on their own.
People either deserve full civil rights or they don't. Why
should states be allowed to deny same sex couples the right to marry?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 09, 2012, 09:36:05 PM
It is an election year...
Yes, and apparently the gay vote is the new Wall Street vote.
I'm glad he's said it and it's the right thing. However I refuse to believe that any politician would do such a thing unless he calculated that it would win votes.
Quote from: Amicale on May 09, 2012, 10:05:04 PM
We can't marry ourselves 'legally' in any country I know of, whether we're gay or straight, so... *shrug*
I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly, but if you mean that you need a church official, sea captain, or judge to legally officiate a marriage ceremony, for the record, any one can perform a marriage ceremony (including the couples simply "marrying themselves") in Colorado. Of course, for some bizarre reason, that doesn't include same sex couples. So I guess your gay friend could officiate your hetero marriage with no particular credentials, but for some reason he can't marry himself to the person of his choosing. Makes total sense. ::)
Husband's cousins "married themselves" in a very pretty ceremony in the mountains. They didn't have an officiant, they just spoke their vows to each other and signed the certificate and then they were married.
Anyway, about Obama coming out in support of...I'm glad he did, but it also pisses me off that it's taken him this long. I've figured that he has secretly supported it all along, but didn't feel that it was politically prudent to say so. That infuriates me; people's civil rights shouldn't be a token in a political game. >:(
I'm getting mixed response on whether this was a shrewd political move or political suicide. After all, there are 31 states with constitutional amendments against gay marriage.
My Southern colleague, some what tongue in cheek, expressed it as "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Albert". Need to find a good cartoon for this.
Quote from: Ali on May 10, 2012, 02:50:53 PM
Quote from: Amicale on May 09, 2012, 10:05:04 PM
We can't marry ourselves 'legally' in any country I know of, whether we're gay or straight, so... *shrug*
I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly, but if you mean that you need a church official, sea captain, or judge to legally officiate a marriage ceremony, for the record, any one can perform a marriage ceremony (including the couples simply "marrying themselves") in Colorado. Of course, for some bizarre reason, that doesn't include same sex couples. So I guess your gay friend could officiate your hetero marriage with no particular credentials, but for some reason he can't marry himself to the person of his choosing. Makes total sense. ::)
Husband's cousins "married themselves" in a very pretty ceremony in the mountains. They didn't have an officiant, they just spoke their vows to each other and signed the certificate and then they were married.
Wow, this is interesting. :) I didn't know that it was possible for a couple to marry each other without an officiant present, ie, totally alone with nobody presiding. That's kinda neat. I'm pretty sure it's required in most other places to have at the bare minimum an officiant/celebrant and at least one witness, but I could be wrong. Colorado seems to be a fun exception! ;)
At any rate, I totally agree with you that it's ridiculous that a gay friend could marry two straight people in the USA, but couldn't marry himself to his partner, or couldn't marry two gay friends there. That's odd, and I hope that changes.
Quote from: Ali on May 10, 2012, 02:50:53 PM
Anyway, about Obama coming out in support of...I'm glad he did, but it also pisses me off that it's taken him this long. I've figured that he has secretly supported it all along, but didn't feel that it was politically prudent to say so. That infuriates me; people's civil rights shouldn't be a token in a political game. >:(
Yeah, it makes me kind of sad that it's taken so long for him to take this stance, like it's so "scandalous." Meanwhile, some of the Conservatives in the U.S. have been un-apologetically rabid about their positions for years.
Quote from: Amicale on May 10, 2012, 03:18:56 PM
Wow, this is interesting. :) I didn't know that it was possible for a couple to marry each other without an officiant present, ie, totally alone with nobody presiding. That's kinda neat. I'm pretty sure it's required in most other places to have at the bare minimum an officiant/celebrant and at least one witness, but I could be wrong.
Yeah, I was surprised by that too. California doesn't even acknowledge common-law marriages.
Quote from: technolud on May 10, 2012, 02:52:49 PM
I'm getting mixed response on whether this was a shrewd political move or political suicide. After all, there are 31 states with constitutional amendments against gay marriage.
My Southern colleague, some what tongue in cheek, expressed it as "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Albert". Need to find a good cartoon for this.
I believe the correct phrase is "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" (said with a nasty sneer) ::) You should tell him if he is going to embrace bigotry, the very least he can do is get the slogan right.
My southern colleague is a she, not a he. Besides, Adam and Albert has a nice ring too.
As for the bigotry, all southerners understand that the northerners are actually the greater bigots. We just hide it better.
Living in Arkansas for 7 years was really an eye opener for me, it was the first time I ever really learned to appreciate New Jersey. Although honestly I find many of the people in this small rural town to be delightful.
Quote from: technolud on May 10, 2012, 02:52:49 PM
I'm getting mixed response on whether this was a shrewd political move or political suicide. After all, there are 31 states with constitutional amendments against gay marriage.
Those people wouldn't vote for Obama, regardless of his view on gay marriage. If he came out and opposed it, they still likely wouldn't vote for him. He did it to make the liberals and moderates happy.
Yes I agree. I just hope (pray?) he did himself more good then damage (politically). I really, really don't want to be saying President Romney.
According to several reports, he raised over $1 million in 90 minutes after flip flopping on this issue.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/gay-marriage-reversal-means-cash-for-obama
Politics as usual, nothing to see here. Move along people.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 10, 2012, 08:54:19 PM
According to several reports, he raised over $1 million in 90 minutes after flip flopping on this issue.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/gay-marriage-reversal-means-cash-for-obama
Politics as usual, nothing to see here. Move along people.
Hmm. So just out of curiosity, when he said that he changed his position gradually over time because of his daughter's, family friends and wife's attitudes, did you think he was lying maybe? Or is it possible he really did change his position, but he knows that saying so out loud might happen to provide him with (political or financial) benefits too?
Quote from: Amicale on May 10, 2012, 09:03:41 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 10, 2012, 08:54:19 PM
According to several reports, he raised over $1 million in 90 minutes after flip flopping on this issue.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/gay-marriage-reversal-means-cash-for-obama
Politics as usual, nothing to see here. Move along people.
Hmm. So just out of curiosity, when he said that he changed his position gradually over time because of his daughter's, family friends and wife's attitudes, did you think he was lying maybe? Or is it possible he really did change his position, but he knows that saying so out loud might happen to provide him with (political or financial) benefits too?
I have no clue, nor do I really care. It's possible he actually believes gays should be allowed to marry, it's also possible he could care less either way and will simply say what is profitable at the time. It's also possible he has supported it for a while but refrained from saying so due to it being beneficial to hold onto that card. There are many possibilities, but since politicians don't have the best tract record with honesty, his statement about why he changed his position means nothing to me in and of itself.
Also, since he still seems to believe the state has the right to regulate marriage, his statement is utterly useless.
Yes, I think he was lying. Here's why:
"I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." -- Obama's answer in a questionnaire during his 1996 run for Illinois state Senate
So he went from favoring it to being against it to evolving back to favoring it again. Cowardly? Yes. But I'm willing to cut him some slack, because actions speak louder than words, and he's been very pro gay rights:
- He pushed for and won a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which forbid openly gay men and women from serving in the US Army
- He refuses to defend the "Defense of Marriage Act" in court, which forbids federal recognition of same-sex marriage (though this took a little pushing as well)
- He signed an executive order forcing hospitals to allow gays and lesbians to have non-family visitors and to grant their partners medical power of attorney
Just as a historical comparison, Abraham Lincoln argued against "Negro suffrage", interracial marriage, and allowing blacks to serve on juries when he was campaigning for public office. Yet he's remembered as the president who freed the slaves. Again, actions speak louder in the end.
^^^
So he was lying before in order to ensure the black vote? That is another valid possibility.
Quote from: technolud on May 10, 2012, 02:52:49 PM
I'm getting mixed response on whether this was a shrewd political move or political suicide. After all, there are 31 states with constitutional amendments against gay marriage.
My Southern colleague, some what tongue in cheek, expressed it as "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Albert". Need to find a good cartoon for this.
'God' created nothing, because it doesnt exist.
The same people against same sex love are usually against mixed raced couples as well. Fuck them.
Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?
The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.
Quote from: Radiant on May 11, 2012, 03:25:24 AM
Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?
The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.
I have to ask. Do you think the issue should be left to the federal government, or taken out of the governments hands entirely?
Quote from: Radiant on May 11, 2012, 03:25:24 AM
Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?
The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.
I think that his comment is pathetic and useless if he doesnt care what other states do.
This is why i hate the U.S
SO MANY states, each with different laws.
Love , marriage, sex, whatever-- as long as both adults are 18+, let them do as they please, damn it.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 03:37:03 AM
Quote from: Radiant on May 11, 2012, 03:25:24 AM
Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?
The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.
I have to ask. Do you think the issue should be left to the federal government, or taken out of the governments hands entirely?
I thought you'd know this well from reading my posts in the Ron Paul topic: It's a government matter, marriage is a legal contract. Taking it out of the government's hands and putting it into church's and other private institution's hands will just allow for more discrimination and nothing will ever be able to be done about it then.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 03:37:03 AM
Quote from: Radiant on May 11, 2012, 03:25:24 AM
Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?
The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.
I have to ask. Do you think the issue should be left to the federal government, or taken out of the governments hands entirely?
Historically, marriage was almost entirely in the hands of the Church. In some capacity, it's still in the hands of the church symbolically, but not officially. Officially, it's now in the hands of the government, and in my country, that happens to include straight or same-sex couples. I think a lot of us are probably mostly relieved that it's a civil institution now, rather than being a mandated religious one. It'll be a long while before marriage in general is out of the government's hands.
I'm curious though. If it were out of the government's hands, ThinkAnarchy, who if anyone do you think ought to be responsible for it?
The main arguments for marriage (aside from being in love, of course) are to be able to gain protections, rights, and benefits. To be the primary person who has a medical say for an ill partner. To have equal legal custody of children. To receive partner medical benefits. Etc etc. All of these things are currently run by the government, essentially. So... where do we go from here? If not a civil institution, then what should marriage become, for both gay and straight people?
Anyone's welcome to answer this.
Quote from: Amicale on May 11, 2012, 03:47:06 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 03:37:03 AM
Quote from: Radiant on May 11, 2012, 03:25:24 AM
Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?
The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.
I have to ask. Do you think the issue should be left to the federal government, or taken out of the governments hands entirely?
I'm curious though. If it were out of the government's hands, ThinkAnarchy, who if anyone do you think ought to be responsible for it?
The two (or more) individuals who want to enter into a matrimonial contract should be responsible for it. The church should be allowed to continue to marry who it likes, and who wants to be married through them. But we should not need government or church approval to enter into this voluntary contract.
I'm not even arguing this from an anarchist perspective. Even if the government got out of marriage, they could easily ensure these voluntary contracts are respected by hospitals and the like.
Why do my wife and I need the government to "validate" our contract? Our marriage is not "legal." We have legal contracts, but not ones many states find acceptable, because we refuse to pay the tithe. She has a ring, I have a ring, and we have promised to fuck nobody but each other. Why is that and our contracts not enough? Why should that not be enough for homosexual couples?
And what is to protect the federal government, in the future, from banning gay marriage across the board if they are able to sieze that power?
Quote from: Radiant on May 11, 2012, 03:41:35 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 03:37:03 AM
Quote from: Radiant on May 11, 2012, 03:25:24 AM
Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?
The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.
I have to ask. Do you think the issue should be left to the federal government, or taken out of the governments hands entirely?
I thought you'd know this well from reading my posts in the Ron Paul topic: It's a government matter, marriage is a legal contract. Taking it out of the government's hands and putting it into church's and other private institution's hands will just allow for more discrimination and nothing will ever be able to be done about it then.
Than you should know by my posts that I'm not calling for it to be in anybodies hands. It is a voluntary contract between consenting adults.
The church can regulate it for those who want to be married by the church, but those who don't, shouldn't be forced to follow state or federal rules regarding this issue.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 04:02:28 AM
Quote from: Radiant on May 11, 2012, 03:41:35 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 03:37:03 AM
Quote from: Radiant on May 11, 2012, 03:25:24 AM
Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?
The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.
I have to ask. Do you think the issue should be left to the federal government, or taken out of the governments hands entirely?
I thought you'd know this well from reading my posts in the Ron Paul topic: It's a government matter, marriage is a legal contract. Taking it out of the government's hands and putting it into church's and other private institution's hands will just allow for more discrimination and nothing will ever be able to be done about it then.
Than you should know by my posts that I'm not calling for it to be in anybodies hands. It is a voluntary contract between consenting adults.
The church can regulate it for those who want to be married by the church, but those who don't, shouldn't be forced to follow state or federal rules regarding this issue.
I think the trouble is that being married comes with some legal privileges. In order for those privileges to be acknowledged, there has to be some kind of way of granting "legitimacy". This is why the state has gotten involved. Otherwise, people could declare that they've married their house plant in order to get a tax break.
I do agree with you in principle, though. I didn't get married out of any kind of loyalty or investment in the idea of the "Institution of Marriage." One of my sisters has a long term partner and she often refers to her beau as "her husband." It's not like I'd ever go and correct her because she didn't get the right paperwork signed. If she considers him her husband, that's good enough for me.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on May 11, 2012, 04:07:39 AM
I think the trouble is that being married comes with some legal privileges. In order for those privileges to be acknowledged, there has to be some kind of way of granting "legitimacy". This is why the state has gotten involved. Otherwise, people could declare that they've married their house plant in order to get a tax break.
I do agree with you in principle, though. I didn't get married out of any kind of loyalty or investment in the idea of the "Institution of Marriage." One of my sisters has a long term partner and she often refers to her beau as "her husband." It's not like I'd ever go and correct her because she didn't get the right paperwork signed. If she considers him her husband, that's good enough for me.
I don't think married couples should get tax breaks, but than again, I don't think anyone should be forced to pay taxes. A plant can't enter into a contract, so I don't see that being a problem.
But to quote "the rents to damn high party" candidate, "you wanna marry a shoe, marry a shoe, the rents to damn high."
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 03:58:24 AM
Why do my wife and I need the government to "validate" our contract? Our marriage is not "legal." We have legal contracts, but not ones many states find acceptable, because we refuse to pay the tithe. She has a ring, I have a ring, and we have promised to fuck nobody but each other. Why is that and our contracts not enough? Why should that not be enough for homosexual couples?
Depends on what you're talking about. If you're purely talking about couples making a committment to each other, then any path that a couple decides for themselves is "enough." It's
your relationship, if it's enough for you, then it's enough. Anyone who doesn't agree, doesn't matter.
But that's not what is granted through a civil marriage. There are a lot of legal issues that are tied in with a civil marriage, and that is the part that people are fighting for, and being denied. I like it that if I'm in the hospital and can't make my own decisions, legally, my hubby has my back. Asmo knows if it was left up to my parents they would keep me hooked up to machines forever and a day, which I would not want. I like that I am able to offer my health insurance to my husband. I like it that if I die, he gets our stuff. I could care less what the government or society
feels about my relationship (if we are to imagine that big faceless institutions like "society" and "government" feels anything) but I do want the rights that come with a civil marriage, and I want my fellow Americans to have access to the same rights. I don't even get what people mean when they say that they want the government out of marriage. I think they are confusing marriage the relationship with marriage the legal contract. I don't know how you can ask the law to get out of a legal contract and then still expect that they enforce it.
Quote from: Ali on May 11, 2012, 08:57:16 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 03:58:24 AM
Why do my wife and I need the government to "validate" our contract? Our marriage is not "legal." We have legal contracts, but not ones many states find acceptable, because we refuse to pay the tithe. She has a ring, I have a ring, and we have promised to fuck nobody but each other. Why is that and our contracts not enough? Why should that not be enough for homosexual couples?
Depends on what you're talking about. If you're purely talking about couples making a committment to each other, then any path that a couple decides for themselves is "enough." It's your relationship, if it's enough for you, then it's enough. Anyone who doesn't agree, doesn't matter.
But that's not what is granted through a civil marriage. There are a lot of legal issues that are tied in with a civil marriage, and that is the part that people are fighting for, and being denied. I like it that if I'm in the hospital and can't make my own decisions, legally, my hubby has my back. Asmo knows if it was left up to my parents they would keep me hooked up to machines forever and a day, which I would not want. I like that I am able to offer my health insurance to my husband. I like it that if I die, he gets our stuff. I could care less what the government or society feels about my relationship (if we are to imagine that big faceless institutions like "society" and "government" feels anything) but I do want the rights that come with a civil marriage, and I want my fellow Americans to have access to the same rights. I don't even get what people mean when they say that they want the government out of marriage. I think they are confusing marriage the relationship with marriage the legal contract. I don't know how you can ask the law to get out of a legal contract and then still expect that they enforce it.
Asking the government to get out of it is not the same as asking the law to get out of it. All I'm saying is many of the things you are talking about should be protected by contract law alone. The signing of the marital contract should be enough. The government shouldn't have the right to say how many people I can marry, nor should it be able to say what sex I'm allowed to marry.
I do not need the government to approve of my lending money to a friend. If they sign a promissory note the law will enforce that note, but the government has nothing to do with the actual contract.
Governments simply should not recognize marriage. Law and government are separate entities. If government stayed out of marriage this entire gay marriage problem would go away. If a hospital then didn't recognize your contract, you could sue them. The reason we currently have these problems is due to the government regulating marriage.
Well, it looks like his flip-flop on this issue may have backfired after all.
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-romney-marriage-president-017/
QuoteThe results of Rasmussen Reports' most recent presidential tracking poll reveal that US President Barack Obama is behind Republican Party frontrunner Mitt Romney by as much as seven percentage points. The research group's latest results, published early Friday, suggests that only 43 percent of the American public would be willing to right now cast a ballot to re-elect President Obama; Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, received 50 percent of the vote.
But the Electoral College projections show Obama with a clear advantage, needing only 17 votes to reach the magic 270. He can lose the popular vote and still win the Presidency by a large margin in the Electoral College.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 11, 2012, 03:40:20 AM
Quote from: Radiant on May 11, 2012, 03:25:24 AM
Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?
The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.
I think that his comment is pathetic and useless if he doesnt care what other states do.
This is why i hate the U.S
SO MANY states, each with different laws.
Love , marriage, sex, whatever-- as long as both adults are 18+, let them do as they please, damn it.
??? ??? ???
You hate the U.S. because of States' Rights?
You're kidding, right? This is a joke and you're just putting us on. Please say it's so.
Oh my Darwin, we've lost the battle for the U.S. if people don't understand States Rights.
Sad day.
Obama did this ONLY for the votes, let's be clear. Just because so many people here love him "no matter what" (you know how we love the politicians on "our side"), doesn't mean it was a good move. It was a cowardly holding back of a strong card that he knew he could play now, rather than him doing the right thing three years ago. If it had been a Republican president doing it, people would be screaming to the sky in anger right now.
So much for intellectual honesty.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/540675_450560158306776_205344452828349_100682353_215592769_n.jpg)
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
All I'm saying is many of the things you are talking about should be protected by contract law alone.
Well, off the top of my head, I don't think contract law alone would help with tax benefits legally married people get.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on May 12, 2012, 03:20:04 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
All I'm saying is many of the things you are talking about should be protected by contract law alone.
Well, off the top of my head, I don't think contract law alone would help with tax benefits legally married people get.
Married couples shouldn't get tax breaks. If you want the tax breaks, than you will have do deal with the government discriminating against certain groups of people. If you don't want the government to have the ability to discriminate against homosexuals and polygamists, stop clinging to your tax breaks.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 12, 2012, 03:25:13 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on May 12, 2012, 03:20:04 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
All I'm saying is many of the things you are talking about should be protected by contract law alone.
Well, off the top of my head, I don't think contract law alone would help with tax benefits legally married people get.
Married couples shouldn't get tax breaks. If you want the tax breaks, than you will have do deal with the government discriminating against certain groups of people. If you don't want the government to have the ability to discriminate against homosexuals and polygamists, stop clinging to your tax breaks.
Not getting the connection, explain.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on May 12, 2012, 03:27:17 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 12, 2012, 03:25:13 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on May 12, 2012, 03:20:04 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 11, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
All I'm saying is many of the things you are talking about should be protected by contract law alone.
Well, off the top of my head, I don't think contract law alone would help with tax benefits legally married people get.
Married couples shouldn't get tax breaks. If you want the tax breaks, than you will have do deal with the government discriminating against certain groups of people. If you don't want the government to have the ability to discriminate against homosexuals and polygamists, stop clinging to your tax breaks.
Not getting the connection, explain.
So far, the main valid argument for the government regulating marriage are the tax breaks. Contract law is capable of upholding a spouses right to visitation at a hospital, successions without a will, parental rights over children, distribution and sharing of property, etc. Even with the tax breaks, I'm not sure those couldn't be kept if the government stopped regulating marriage. The courts would simply need to recognize the voluntary contract between two or more consenting adults.
We already have ages of majority, so there would be no worry of children entering into these contracts. My point is, we shouldn't need the government to "allow" homosexuals to marry. Perhaps if a couple wanted the tax breaks they would need to file with the courts records, as is currently done with property. But why should the government have any say in who consenting adults marry?
So, actually, the more I think about it, tax breaks shouldn't even matter in this regard.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy link=topic=9987.msg170765#msg170765Perhaps if a couple wanted the tax breaks they would need to file with the courts records, as is currently done with property. But why should the government have any say in who consenting adults marry?
So, actually, the more I think about it, tax breaks shouldn't even matter in this regard.
I don't think the government should have a say in who consenting adults marry, the connection I don't see is getting tax breaks via marriage enforcing government discrimination against same-sex and/or poly marriages. If these marriage were legalized, they'd be getting the same tax breaks -- which is part of the benefit of legal marriages.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 12, 2012, 03:49:49 AM
Contract law is capable of upholding a spouses right to visitation at a hospital, successions without a will, parental rights over children, distribution and sharing of property, etc. Even with the tax breaks, I'm not sure those couldn't be kept if the government stopped regulating marriage. The courts would simply need to recognize the voluntary contract between two or more consenting adults.
What I don't get is how you think that "contract law" is different from a civil marriage. A civil marriage is a contract that already stipulates all of those things. I agree that the government shouldn't discriminate between which consenting adults can enter into the contract, but I still don't get why it should be something separate from marriage.
Couple of comments here. First off, don't listen to any Rasmussen polls. Rasmussen is notoriously biased to conservatives. The founder has even written a column for World Net Daily, which is one of those right-wing sites that kept insisting Obama was not born in the US.
Blog on Rasmussen polls (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/)
World Net Daily wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Net_Daily)
Second, we're going down a rat-hole here by saying the government should not recognize marriage. This is not practical. How would you require that married couples be allowed hospitalization rights and the right to decide medical care for your spouse if the government doesn't recognize it? Or inheritance rights? Or that married adults who adopts children are both their legal guardians? Or visitation rights for divorced couples? Etc, etc. Contract law is not an acceptable substitute here.
Interesting little factoid: in Turkey, marriage is a purely civil institution. While you can have a religious ceremony as part of the marriage, the actual marriage itself must be done by a government official (clerk, etc) so as to prevent religious institutions from having a disproportionate influence over it. Don't know if that would ever happen here, but I kinda like that.
EDIT: fixed typo
Yes yes same sex couples, I see it now. People I like have told me I should excuse them their abnormality, excuse me I have to approve a few bombings, sign off on the further stationing of shackled troops in hostile lands.
That above wasn't altogether serious but when someone needs the basics of right and wrong explained to them...
Our female unmarried in a defacto relationship atheist prime minister is sticking by her rejection to gay marriage stance. She isn't popular, many people don't believe her about anything. :( The opposition guy is more popular even though he is an extreme creep.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on May 12, 2012, 05:52:29 PM
Yes yes same sex couples, I see it now. People I like have told me I should excuse them their abnormality, excuse me I have to approve a few bombings, sign off on the further stationing of shackled troops in hostile lands.
That above wasn't altogether serious but when someone needs the basics of right and wrong explained to them...
Our female unmarried in a defacto relationship atheist prime minister is sticking by her rejection to gay marriage stance. She isn't popular, many people don't believe her about anything. :( The opposition guy is more popular even though he is an extreme creep.
I believe my 'translate cryptic text/sarcasm/irony meter' may be broken today. :P That and I'm tired. So if I can ask you Pudding, are you saying you support gay marriage, or no? Wasn't sure how excusing our abnormality and approving a few bombings fit together. :D
Quote from: Amicale on May 12, 2012, 06:02:25 PM
I believe my 'translate cryptic text/sarcasm/irony meter' may be broken today. :P That and I'm tired. So if I can ask you Pudding, are you saying you support gay marriage, or no? Wasn't sure how excusing our abnormality and approving a few bombings fit together. :D
I'm OK with gay marriage.
I'm rabidly opposed to those who are opposed to it.
I don't dislike Obama.
So his public position was against gay marriage but this week it has turned around.
He talked to a few people recently and they convinced him he was mistaken, gay marriage is OK.
I think the satire was based in the idea of a guy that has to be told what's right yet controls wars.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on May 12, 2012, 07:18:43 PM
I think the satire was based in the idea of a guy that has to be told what's right yet controls wars.
"What's right" is extremely subjective, what irks me is that, prior to becoming President, he voiced support for gay marriage and against the war. I know we voters have no right to expect that the president we think we're voting for is the president we'll actually get, and changes of political position are often unavoidable, but I do find it insulting when they assume we have no memories.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on May 12, 2012, 07:28:08 PM
"What's right" is extremely subjective, what irks me is that, prior to becoming President, he voiced support for gay marriage and against the war. I know we voters have no right to expect that the president we think we're voting for is the president we'll actually get, and changes of political position are often unavoidable, but I do find it insulting when they assume we have no memories.
it's late, sorry good night.QuoteIn an interview with ABC News' Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an "evolution" that led him to this decision, based on conversations with his staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and his wife and daughters.
I don't accept that these talks with other people changed Obama's view on the right/wrong of same sex marriage, perhaps they would have convinced him he should
publicly support it. I'd have trouble respecting a clever man of his age who had to be convinced same sex marriage was OK. Perhaps with a complex issue new information becomes available, a new perspective may be attained through consultation, this is an admirable thing. The politics of supporting this may be complex but the issue itself is very simple. I wouldn't trust the moral values of a person who needed to consult others to conclude this oppression is wrong.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on May 12, 2012, 07:39:57 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on May 12, 2012, 07:28:08 PM
"What's right" is extremely subjective, what irks me is that, prior to becoming President, he voiced support for gay marriage and against the war. I know we voters have no right to expect that the president we think we're voting for is the president we'll actually get, and changes of political position are often unavoidable, but I do find it insulting when they assume we have no memories.
It thought I expressed that in my satirical stuff.
Didn't you see it?
Many people thought "A Modest Proposal" was a serious proposal. We didn't get satire then, and we have a hard time getting it now. ;)
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on May 12, 2012, 07:39:57 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on May 12, 2012, 07:28:08 PM
"What's right" is extremely subjective, what irks me is that, prior to becoming President, he voiced support for gay marriage and against the war. I know we voters have no right to expect that the president we think we're voting for is the president we'll actually get, and changes of political position are often unavoidable, but I do find it insulting when they assume we have no memories.
It thought I expressed that in my satirical stuff.
Didn't you see it?
No, I was having the same problem Ami was and besides, I have a hard time understanding poetry even when my irony meter is working.
Pandering for votes? Bullshit. Obama would never have admitted this so early if Joe Biden hadn't forced his hand. Being pro gay may have less stigma, but it definitely will still hurt a candidate. Especially in the south.
Quote from: RenegeReversi on May 26, 2012, 11:07:58 PM
Pandering for votes? Bullshit. Obama would never have admitted this so early if Joe Biden hadn't forced his hand. Being pro gay may have less stigma, but it definitely will still hurt a candidate. Especially in the south.
And who is going to vote for Obama in the South anyway?
Good point. I concede.
Quote from: Tank on May 26, 2012, 11:14:18 PM
Quote from: RenegeReversi on May 26, 2012, 11:07:58 PM
Pandering for votes? Bullshit. Obama would never have admitted this so early if Joe Biden hadn't forced his hand. Being pro gay may have less stigma, but it definitely will still hurt a candidate. Especially in the south.
And who is going to vote for Obama in the South anyway?
It can still hurt him in a lot of the swing states in the midwest. 30 states have passed laws and/or amendments banning gay marriage, so it's not just the south. Overall, it's extremely risky and could hurt him in the end. I'm glad that he did it, but RenegeReversi is exactly right.
What I know about American politics comes from HAF so it's pretty limited.
Sadly, HAF is not representative of the American electorate. If it was, I probably wouldn't have felt the need to join :)
Honestly, I am shocked how quickly opinion has turned in favor of marriage equality in this country, though. Back in '04, Bush used it as a means to get out the vote. Now the republicans are trying to change the subject every time it comes up, even the wacko pundits on Fox. It's a beautiful thing to watch.