John McCain and Civil Unions

[Kulindahr]

You're correct on the single issue of gay marriage, where Obama is inconsistent in talking about full equal rights for gay couples, but stops short of supporting gay marriage. His reasons for doing that are obvious, and realistic, but that doesn't make his position any more consistent.]

Yes, his reasons are obvious: it's part of his Christian faith.
Why do you attribute to him conniving, scheming motives?

 

[AsianDream]

Originally Posted by Spensed You're correct on the single issue of gay marriage, where Obama is inconsistent in talking about full equal rights for gay couples, but stops short of supporting gay marriage. His reasons for doing that are obvious, and realistic, but that doesn't make his position any more consistent.

Yes, his reasons are obvious: it's part of his Christian faith.
Why do you attribute to him conniving, scheming motives?

I think that if Obama wins he (and a Democratic Congress) will deliver "Civil Unions" to gay US citizens.

Obama and many other US voters have religious reasons for not using the word "Marriage" to describe Gay relationships. But the de-facto legal right is what matters - not what it is called.

I don't think Obama has conniving, scheming motives in this case - more a happy confluence between his own opinion and that of many US voters.

Even if McCain wins - there will be a Democrat Congress - which will almost certainly enact a "Civil Union" law for same sex couples - which McCain won't veto.

Many Americans seem appallingly ignorant of their own constitution - the president has no power to make laws - only the congress can do this.

Even if the US had a president that thought the word "Marriage" should only now be allowed for same sex couples - not those of opposite sex - this would be the decision of Congress - not his.

 

[Spensed]

Yes, his reasons are obvious: it's part of his Christian faith.
Why do you attribute to him conniving, scheming motives?

I don't.

Just because something's politically expedient doesn't mean it has to flow from "conniving, scheming motives". Or, indeed, from religious convictions. Though sometimes it is hard to tell the difference. LOL.

Obama's support of civil unions and full equality, while at the same time opposing gay marriage position looks, walks and talks like a reasoned, intelligent and persuasive position that he considers a prudent compromise and/or stepping stone.

I hadn't heard or read that his reasons for opposing gay marriage are "part of his Christian faith". If you have, I appreciate some links or sources.

If you're right, that means he's contradicting his own Church's teaching on the subject. The United Church of Christ openly endorses and supports gay marriage and has done so for several years.

Obama, of course, also opposes the anti-gay marriage voter initiative in California.

 

[Spensed]

I don't think Obama has conniving, scheming motives in this case - more a happy confluence between his own opinion and that of many US voters.

I agree with you. I don't see that one needs to read anything more into it than that.

Many Americans seem appallingly ignorant of their own constitution - the president has no power to make laws - only the congress can do this.

Right in theory. Not so sure you're always right in reality for a number of reasons.

It's politically much harder for Congress to act or override a veto than it is for the President to veto or use his position to press for legislation or color its public perception. Individual members of Congress have their own agendas and concerns and legislation is often a compromise or barter within Congress itself and with the White House.

Even with a veto proof majority in Congress, if McCain is in the White House, I just don't see Congress spending much poltical capital on a gay issue.

 

[AsianDream]

Right in theory. Not so sure you're always right in reality for a number of reasons.

It's politically much harder for Congress to act or override a veto than it is for the President to veto or use his position to press for legislation or color its public perception. Individual members of Congress have their own agendas and concerns and legislation is often a compromise or barter within Congress itself and with the White House.

Even with a veto proof majority in Congress, if McCain is in the White House, I just don't see Congress spending much poltical capital on a gay issue.

I do know that the reality of most political systems is that the "deals" done behind closed doors are often more important than the formal legal position.

In some ways this is the way electoral power is actually expressed in practice. It means that no Politician can ignore any substantial minority that will vote on a single issue.

This is why no sensible US politician will ever seriously piss off the Jewish Vote - even though these are only 3% of voters. Nor will they do anything to completely lose the gay vote either (again about 3%).

Broadly - US policy towards Israel is not the main determinant of how Jews vote - but it certainly would be if a US administration abandoned Israel.

In the same way - the US "gay vote" isn't that worried about marriage rights - but would almost universally vote against anyone trying to "roll back" current gay rights.

So the reason US Gays may not get at least "Civil Unions" - is that as a group - this is not something they feel strongly enough about to exercise their "political muscle" over.

On the other hand - US congressmen are great opportunists - desperate for any publicity - so some of them that have a very "Pink" electorate (or even someone that genuinely thinks it right) will sponsor a bill for "Civil Unions"-

In which case not many other congressmen (or the president) will want to be on record as voting against it. Sensibly - like Obamma in the Saddleback debate - they will mostly express their opposition to "Gay Mariage" but stress that they don't wan't to stop Gay people visiting their partner in hospital

 

[Spensed]

So the reason US Gays may not get at least "Civil Unions" - is that as a group - this is not something they feel strongly enough about to exercise their "political muscle" over.

Some gays do feel strongly about it. Some don't. One or two I know even oppose gay marriage, and the preceived steps towards it, as selling out to the straight lifestyle.

The problem is that the gay lobby is too fragmented and is opposed by much more monolithic crazies.

Not unlike the difference generally between Democrats and Republicans.
​

 

[AsianDream]

Some gays do feel strongly about it. Some don't. One or two I know even oppose gay marriage, and the preceived steps towards it, as selling out to the straight lifestyle.

The problem is that the gay lobby is too fragmented and is opposed by much more monolithic crazies.

Not unlike the difference generally between Democrats and Republicans.
​

As I said - as a group this isn't something US Gays care about a lot. Be careful what you can't even be bothered to wish for - because you probably won't get it.

 

[Sondrith]

As I said - as a group this isn't something US Gays care about a lot. Be careful what you can't even be bothered to wish for - because you probably won't get it.

Actually the problem is that as a voting block we are not that strong. The Republican don't need us to win, so our issues are irrelevant to the majority of them. Democrats absolutely need our votes but don't really have to do much because they KNOW that the majority of gay American would never vote for a Republican. We don't call them to taks when they make promises to us to get elected and then don't follow thorugh. That's why should Sen. Obama be elected in Nov you are not going to see anything different for the gay community in 4 years.

There is a HUGE difference between the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. and our struggle for equality. They stood up and demanded equality, they were willing to sacrifice for a greater ideal. We just can't be bothered, and besides the Democrats say that we're included.

 

[Spensed]

As I said - as a group this isn't something US Gays care about a lot. Be careful what you can't even be bothered to wish for - because you probably won't get it.

That's a negative and meaningless generality. Like saying that, unless the Chinese as a group care about increased political and civil rights, they probably won't get them. That may, or may not, be true.

Although a homogenous group common purpose is, obviously an advantage, many political advances are achieved by individuals and factions within a group.

So, OK there isn't a complete consensus about the importance of gay marriage amoung US gays and that doesn't help. But that doesn't mean that those, who think it is important, can't or won't get what they want.

 

[Spensed]

That's why should Sen. Obama be elected in Nov you are not going to see anything different for the gay community in 4 years.

Maybe yes and maybe no.

One thing that is clear is that Obama has a specific list of promised pro-gay action on his campaign website and a strong pro-gay voting record. So it's reasonably to assume that he'll act in the future as he's acted in the past.

McCain's record, for the most part, is one of opposing progress on gay civil rights.

 

[Kulindahr]

I hadn't heard or read that his reasons for opposing gay marriage are "part of his Christian faith". If you have, I appreciate some links or sources.

His answer at the Saddleback forum said as much.

 

[Kulindahr]

McCain's record, for the most part, is one of opposing progress on gay civil rights.

You're being too kind.

Let me help you with that sentence; it should read, "McCain's record, for the most part, is one of opposing civil rights".

 

[Seosamh]

I think the whole issue here boils down to semantics and very poorly thought out and planned word choice by HRC and others.

If you get 100 people in a room and ask them what's the first word you think of when you think of "marriage" I guarantee you the overwhelming majority will say something about a church, religion, temple, etc.. Therein is the problem. You've given the Right the ability to use the argument "If Gays get the right to marry, they'll be forcing themselves into our churches!!" and so on. Very easy to play and get the turnout you want to defeat such initiatives with that type of argument.

I for one think we need to take the word "marriage" out of the equation and press for full Civil Union rights and benefits. We need to frame the debate so as to separate the religious implications associated with the word "marriage". Its not going to be something that will happen overnight - we're in for the long haul. At the end of the day though, it will come to the Supreme Court I think and I do believe the 14th Amendment will decide the issue, I believe in our favor.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Well reasoned!

We should press for "civil unions" for everyone, and get the word "marriage" out of the law entirely. Let the churches have it!

 

[Spensed]

I for one think we need to take the word "marriage" out of the equation and press for full Civil Union rights and benefits. We need to frame the debate so as to separate the religious implications associated with the word "marriage".

Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always thought that was the Obama campaign strategy. It gets him the majority of the gays, who bother to vote, while mitigating a wedge issue that would be used against him.

 

[Seosamh]

Spensed - You may be correct, tho my understanding is Sen Obama wants/supports separate Civil Unions for homosexuals while retaining Marriage for heterosexuals. What I tried to articulate and what Kulindahr stated was that I would like to see Civil Unions for everyone across the board. Get churches and religion out of the picture, period. Much like many European countries have it set up - the Civil Union confers on the couple all the benefits/rights/privileges and is the only document recognized by the State. Religious marriages take place after the Civil Union and are the choice of the couple.

OH - just realized in my original post I mis-typed and not quite sure how to edit it now - lol - I reference the 14th Amendment - it should read the 4th Amendment.

 

[construct]

OH - just realized in my original post I mis-typed and not quite sure how to edit it now - lol - I reference the 14th Amendment - it should read the 4th Amendment.

I think you were right the first time with the 14th Amendment which protects us from the states' depriving us of life, liberty, or property without due process and which requires equal protection of the law. The 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures and requires probable cause for a warrant. I don't see how the 4th Amendment has anything to do with any of this.

The 5th Amendment due process clause is the federal analog to the 14th Amendment. It would be significant in a suit challenging DOMA.

 

[AsianDream]

Originally Posted by AsianDream
As I said - as a group this isn't something US Gays care about a lot. Be careful what you can't even be bothered to wish for - because you probably won't get it.

That's a negative and meaningless generality. Like saying that, unless the Chinese as a group care about increased political and civil rights, they probably won't get them. That may, or may not, be true.

Although a homogenous group common purpose is, obviously an advantage, many political advances are achieved by individuals and factions within a group.

So, OK there isn't a complete consensus about the importance of gay marriage amoung US gays and that doesn't help. But that doesn't mean that those, who think it is important, can't or won't get what they want.

In fact – far from being a meaningless generality – it’s how the world actually works

Sadly the Chinese as a group don’t care much about increased political and civil rights – this is probably why they won't actually get them for a very long time.

Exactly the same inevitable logic applies to the issue of gay rights in the USA – you won’t get them simply because you don’t care enough and aren’t willing to work for them.

But maybe we should resume this discussion in ten years time - when US Gays still won't have achieved full civil rights - then I can say I told you so - or else will be pleasantly surprised that you were right.

 

[Spensed]

^ My point was that a group may, or may not, care about something, but it's often a small number of activists in the group that make things happen. That isn't changed by whether goals of the activists are reached or not.

For the US, I think the defeating the upcoming anti-gay marriage initiative is the immediate key. If that happens, with gay marriages in both Massachusetts and California, it's going to be very hard to unwind all the marriages involved.

If Obama also delivers on his equal right civil unions, hopefully that will make it even harder to to turn the clock back.

 

[Seosamh]

I think you were right the first time with the 14th Amendment which protects us from the states' depriving us of life, liberty, or property without due process and which requires equal protection of the law. The 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures and requires probable cause for a warrant. I don't see how the 4th Amendment has anything to do with any of this.

The 5th Amendment due process clause is the federal analog to the 14th Amendment. It would be significant in a suit challenging DOMA.

My error AGAIN Construct - apologies. Too early in the AM when I posted perhaps. I did not mean the 4th Amendment - I was thinking the 4th Article - Full Faith and Credit Clause.