Obama, DOMA and you...

[Kurn]

I want society to learn that an intellectual marriage, one which doesn't in itself unite gametes, is indeed a marriage.
Then society will have become more intellectual and sane in general.

We should spend our emotional energy on calmly replying with the truth within.
If the truth within doesn't come with enough words, that means your soul needs cultivation: Weeding and careful care. Mindful self-revelation and simple good acts daily. Discovering the phrases that edify yourself and others and saying them.

 

[G-Lexington]

>>>So, since we can't trust the people we elect (shock) and I'm too busy this week to overthrow the government...what do you have in mind?

My belief is that this is a societal change. And societal change, as I've said, happens from the bottom UP, not from the top DOWN. Think of the advances that were made on the gay-marriage front over the last eight years or so. Eight years ago, we were hoping maybe someday there might be some sort of civil union thing. Now, gay marriage seems like an actual possibility, and to some, a near-inevitability. Gay marriage has become legal in a few states, and it seems to be gaining ground in many others.

And all this happened under W. A president who wasn't exactly spearheading the change. In fact, his main move when it came to homosexuals was to warn America that voting for his rival would be tantamount to allowing gay marriage, which was a true threat to "real" marriage and the American way of life. (A stance which, four years ago, helped clinch his victory.)

My point is that great strides were made even under what you might term a hostile regime. And I think a lot more progress can be made under this one. Yeah, if Obama was actively supporting it, I think we'd have an easier time of it. But I wasn't counting on his support. I didn't vote for him expecting him to "do our work for us". I expected him, at very best, to be a passive ally, and voted for him based on other criteria.

I'm not discounting the importance of voting. But there's more to changing the world than putting a HOPE sticker on the back of your car. Politics and change don't just happen every leap year. Change happens daily, down at the local and personal level. The few states with gay marriage didn't sit around waiting for the president to give his thumbs-up. They fostered support at the state and local level, they elected judges who were sympathetic to the cause, and they fought the good fight. And, hopefully, they're continuing to do so to keep things from overturning.

Yeah, it'd be easier if Obama just did it for us. But, as I said, I never expected him to. Instead, it's up to us. To work on things at a state and local level. And I think just by being gay-out-and-proud, we're helping the cause. Most of the people I find out are anti-gay-marriage don't KNOW anybody gay. Once they do, they start questioning their beliefs. Because it's easy to demonize gays if you don't know any. They're just a bunch of sex-crazed, anti-family sinners, right? Then they meet one...and they're forced to think about things. "Why can't Lex and Pubert get married?" Why can't these real-life, human beings enter into a marriage with the one they love? And person by person, I think the tide turns in our favor.

No, it's not fast, and no, it's not easy. But how bad do you want it?

Lex

 

[metta]

The Other Side of Justice

Even though I personally believe that DOMA is unconstitutional, I think that this particular lawsuit is very vulnerable; it’s not anywhere near as strong as the one that was brought in the federal district court in Massachusetts [a suit filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders].

In an environment where the Supreme Court is still quite conservative, what makes a suit a strong one is that it finds a point of entry in which it’s possible to invalidate a law in a number of its applications by using more of a scalpel that might appeal to five justices rather than a bludgeon that will almost certainly ask more of the court than it is willing to do.

Under the traditions of the solicitor general’s office, the government does have an obligation to provide a defense in any lawsuit where there is a plausible argument to be made, even if the president does not agree with the law.
There certainly are cases where the government declines to defend the law, but those are few and far between. If congress were to pass a law that flew directly in the face of a binding Supreme Court precedent -- a law outlawing early-term abortion or a law providing for "separate but equal" schools -- the obligation of the Justice Department to the Constitution would trump its obligation to defend the laws of congress.

But DOMA is in a gray area where there are experts like me, who think it’s unconstitutional, and you can find experts who hold the opposite view, and it’s certainly not a slam-dunk.

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid90000.asp

Was it really necessary for the doj to go as far as stating the disgusting things that they did?

 

[gsdx]

Just give me the legal benefits, I couldn't care less about what it's called.

Yes, I can hear it now:

"I love you so much, Joe."

(Kissy Kissy Hug Hug)

"I love you so much, too, John."

(More Kissy Kissy Hug Hug)

"Will you perform the civil union ceremony with me, Joe?"

(Still more Kissy Kissy Hug Hug)

"Of course, John. Nothing could make me happier than to become civilly united with you."

 

[Apollo]

So we elect somebody who says they will work with us to change the laws...

Or you do what you have a right to do as an American citizen. You bug the shit out of your politicians and get others to do so to, and make them think about it.

Despite everything we think about politicians, they support only what the powerful people not in their seat support. The religious right made themselves very powerful, and dangled an election over their head to support their position. If you want equal gay rights, you make yourself powerful and heard. Make politicians realize, that if they vote against us, they won't have a seat to sit in next election 'round.

Despite Obama defending DOMA. If the Congress sent him a bill repealing it, he would sign it. And if the Congress sent him a bill repealing DADT, he would sign it. But of course, no one focuses on the Congress in this matter. They expect the President to do it.

While I hope he eventually helps (and I believe he will), it isn't his job to get laws made, it is his job to enforce them. Of course, he didn't have to enforce DOMA. Sad day for gay Americans truly.

 

[techboywi]

I don't see how having a civil union, which, really, is marriage just without using the word makes us less equal. I have two friends, who have been together now for 13 years, they did a commitment ceremony at our Pridefest several years ago. In their mind, they are married, and treat it as such. They don't have the title of marriage, but in every way they act as if they do. While we haven't talked about this exact subject, knowing them like I do, I doubt they'd rush out and get a silly word attached to them to "validate" their relationship.

I could care less what others think of me... I am single now, but when I meet that right person, I will "Marry" them even though I may not be legally able to do so. I will however refer to them as my husband, even if we only have a civil union.

 

[spooger]

There is a bit of a difference between being fed bullshit and "thinking it's caviar", versus thinking that politicians should be held accountable for their publicly stated promises.

There seems to be this belief that people who voted for Obama were worshipping at his feet.

Many of us, dare I say the VAST MAJORITY of us, voted for him fully aware of the fact that he's a politician, and we voted for him because he had a good record supporting LGBT rights and legislation. No one thought he was perfect. We knew he stood against gay marriage. But DOMA is its own little monster.

So I don't think this is at ALL a shock because we followed Obama blindly into the light.

It is a shock because it was a commitment that he specifically made to the LGBT community that he has seemingly abandoned.

eloquent

and furthers my statement that he intentionally lied to gain his position ... making him just as despicable as any of the other politicians he railed against during the campaign ... making fools of his faithful supporters who believed his lies

**clip**

I think his relationship with his former minister, Jeremiah Wright, is a perfect example. Obama claimed to have been totally surprised and shocked by some of Rev Wright's recorded statements, despite having been a member of the congregation for many years. And then he threw Wright under the bus when it became clear that continuing the public relationship was threatening Obama's chances at winning the election.

**clip**.

his feigned "surprise" at Wright's anti-American vitriol has also recently been shown to be a lie ... as i always believed it to be ... as it has come to light that Obama had a secret meeting with Wright to try to persuade him to tone down his rhetoric or to be silent, or possibly cause him (Obama) great difficulties during the campaign ... it was only after Wright refused to silence himself that Obama was "surprised" and quit the church

"According to the new book, Renegade: The Making of a President, Barack Obama held a secret meeting with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright towards the end of the 2008 presidential primary season. The goal was to get Wright to end his public appearances which were believed to be hurting Obama in the battleground states of North Carolina and Indiana."

source>>http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/06/02/obamas_secret_meeting_with_wright.html

sorry ... i hope Obama is successful as president ... my Country needs that ... but the idea that he is somehow better or different as a politician is just plain hooey ... he fed a line to his faithful supporters, knowing all along that he was lying on every level ...

expect NO help from him in furtherance of GLBT issues and you'll be less disappointed when he tosses the fags under the political bus to enhance his own ambitions

 

[Apollo]

The state-by-state, issue-by-issue approach is all well and good, I suppose. That is if you don't want to see full equality in the United States during your lifetime.

As for the bottom-up approach, part of that is electing people who will help us win equality. Without congressmen and women to submit bills to change existing laws, without governors to sign the bills into law and without courts who will look at any cases through the eyes of the Constitution and not through eyes clouded by personal (or political) beliefs then where can we really go?

The civil rights movement of the 1950s and '60s wasn't won by going through one state at a time, issue by issue. Though protests were done at the local level, the major changes came from that D.C. with various Supreme Court rulings and laws passed by Congress.

Another problem with this state-by-state approach is that when so much attention is placed on one state (like California) other states get ignored by the groups that are supposed to be working with the whole country. Proposition 8 is a perfect example of this. While the fight leading up to election day was being waged, with more and more money heading to California from around the world, there were three other gay related issues on state ballots that were largely ignored. I do not begrudge the need to fight Proposition 8 but I do have an issue with the tunnel vision that set in.

That is why I feel that working for full equality, not piecemeal "do what you can if you can" equality is more important for the community as a whole.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

I hope everyone pays attention to the part I bolded and colored.

I mean, I still think the civil rights movement is different from the Gay Rights movement, and shouldn't be compared.

But, if people like to think it is, than can we start doing things the way they did? Cause they did it right, and they got it done right. Not all this tunnel vision people have on California and prop 8.

We do not have a central leader like Martin Luther King, JR. was. But do we need one? Can't we figure out an actual effective movement without the need for one?

 

[Apollo]

I don't see how having a civil union, which, really, is marriage just without using the word makes us less equal. I have two friends, who have been together now for 13 years, they did a commitment ceremony at our Pridefest several years ago. In their mind, they are married, and treat it as such. They don't have the title of marriage, but in every way they act as if they do. While we haven't talked about this exact subject, knowing them like I do, I doubt they'd rush out and get a silly word attached to them to "validate" their relationship.

I could care less what others think of me... I am single now, but when I meet that right person, I will "Marry" them even though I may not be legally able to do so. I will however refer to them as my husband, even if we only have a civil union.

I don't either, and people in Britian don't as well.

 

[Apollo]

When I compare the movement of the 50s and 60s with the gay movement of today, I don't mean to equate them any more than I would the civil rights movement with women's suffrage other than it being a group of people fighting for equality under the law.

Do we need a leader? Maybe. The real question is could we find somebody that a majority would get behind. Of that, I have doubts.

Do we need a leader? IDK, it think it would help to show the media and the politicians a face for the movement for full gay rights. The religious right has several powerful leaders who the media know to go to to answer for them and so do congressmen.

We don't have a central face for our movement, unless you count the dead ones that are no longer alive. May God bless their souls.

The movement is too scattered, and equally as scatter brained. We need someone, or someones who is willing to be the face and the eloquent leader of this movement. Cause if the media doesn't know who to talk to, or the congress doesn't know what group to talk to, then how are we to get anything done?

 

[gsdx]

I don't see how having a civil union, which, really, is marriage just without using the word makes us less equal.

Because, to put it bluntly, you won't be able to do what 'normal' people do. . . and that is to get married. That makes you unequal to the others. You will never be like 'normal' people. If you can't see that, then your head is stuck somewhere that never sees the light of day.

 

[2243]

... Personally, I agree with the argument that "marriage" should not be something handled by the government. All unions should be civil unions and if people want to have their unions sanctified by the church then they can exchange non-legally binding marriage vows at their church after the civil union has been performed.

Why can't this happen? Why can't this just be the way things are done?

Is it too late now that other countries have been using "marriage'' for same-sex couples? Is the word too tangled in law and gov't that it can't be removed or replaced?

I remember being a kid in church and thinking that marriage was something that was just not going to happen for me; I always saw it as more of a part of religion. Of course back then I didn't think about any legal benefits, but even that hasn't changed my view on it much. I'm not against or trying to put down those who do want Gay Marriage, I guess I've just always had this "Fuck your 'Marriage' I don't need you to bless my love" attitude towards it. I just wish the word would stay in church and out of law and gov't. Under law they should all be civil unions, then if you believe, under religion you will be married.

 

[gsdx]

Under law they should all be civil unions

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica

civil union

sociology

Main

legal recognition of the committed, marriagelike partnership of two individuals. Typically, the civil registration of their commitment provides the couple with legal benefits that approach or are equivalent to those of marriage, such as rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decision making, differential taxation, adoption and artificial insemination, and employee benefits for partners and dependents.

It's that 'approach' thing that makes it less than equal.

.

 

[gsdx]

I don't get it.

I'm wondering if it could be that Florida is rather famous for being the state where old people go to retire (or to get away from the winter snow). Except for Spring Break, it's not famous for younger people.

California is the state where all the young people dream of moving to, and it's the young people who are going to suffer more from the decisions.

 

[2243]

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica

It's that 'approach' thing that makes it less than equal.

.

That's why I said "should".

Maybe I should clarify, I believe there should be no legal distinctions between a marriage and a civil union and that the word "marriage" should be taken out of law and gov't.

 

[gsdx]

That's why I said "should".

Maybe I should clarify, I believe there should be no legal distinctions between a marriage and a civil union and that the word "marriage" should be taken out of law and gov't.

That would mean turning your back on almost 240 years of history. I can't see that ever happening.

 

[2243]

That would mean turning your back on almost 240 years of history. I can't see that ever happening.

So that's why it can't happen? Because of how long it's been that way?

That's not enough to change my opinion that it should change.

 

[gsdx]

So that's why it can't happen? Because of how long it's been that way?

That's not enough to change my opinion that it should change.

You forget that the Church is the government.

 

[Apollo]

/........................../

 

[2243]

You forget that the Church is the government.

How do you mean?