Why the Maine people's veto attempt on gay marriage will fail

[Kulindahr]

I think it's pretty likely that he left because of this.

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=281236

That's kind of central to it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Thus is the power of Christianity. That is my belief.

Then ponder this:

it's because I'm a Christian that I oppose these barbarians.

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/billtexts/SP038401.asp

Thanks.

I could not vote in support of that, because it contains discriminatory sections, to wit:

§ 650-A. Codification of marriage

Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people.

and

4. Polygamy. A marriage contracted while either party has a living wife or husband from whom the party is not divorced is void.

Both limit the free choice of individuals. While the change is a step in the right direction, and I will be thrilled for those who will be allowed civil marriage who could not before, I cannot in good conscience vote for something that contains discrimination.

It would be easy enough to rectify: in 650-A, replace "2" with "freely consenting", and in (701) 4, add, after "divorced", ", without the free consent of the living wife or husband to marry the new party,".

That would be freedom -- as it is, it is not.

 

[hotatlboi]

I would never vote against straight marriage if I couldn't have a gay marriage.

I agree, why you would oppose progress is beyond me.

I mean, we get that you want polygamy. But that is just not an option right now.

However, getting society to at least accept non-traditional marriage of 2 people seems to be a pretty huge first step to potentially allowing anything like that to me.

 

[palemale]

I think it's pretty likely that he left because of this.

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=281236

How awful and sad. If you're checking in here Pumpkin, know that I'm thinking of you.

 

[Kulindahr]

I would never vote against straight marriage if I couldn't have a gay marriage. But you seem content in voting against gay marriage if you can't have multiple marriages. That is supremely selfish and egocentric.

Kulindahr, you are in desperate need of a reality check. We don't need you. We will have gay marriage in Maine eventually and in the rest of the country, with or without your help. But when you start calling in the favors for polygamy, who is going to be there for you? That is why you don't burn bridges. When you go into the ballot box to vote against gay marriage, or even abstain, that's alienating 4% of US citizens, a huge number, and a likely segment of people who could probably be persuaded to see it your way.

So I'm supposed to vote against liberty now in hopes of getting it later?

 

[Kulindahr]

You're talking about liberty like we are on the same page on polygamy. It isn't liberty just because you say it is. I see it as inequality.

It isn't liberty because they don't get to choose what they want; the only ones you'd allow to get what they want are the ones who agree with you.

Kinda like Bush....

 

[Kulindahr]

Bush doesn't believe in equality. I do.

You believe in the same kind of equality: the kind that comes from requiring everyone to choose from a menu of things you approve of.

 

[NickCole]

The Advocate asked the White House for a statement that might help out in Maine and Washington.

In response to an inquiry from The Advocate, the White House sent the following statement regarding President Barack Obama’s position on same-sex relationship recognition voter referenda in Maine and Washington.

“The President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples, and as he said at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, he believes ‘strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away.’ Also at the dinner, he said he supports, ‘ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country.’"

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/10/16/White_House_Issues_Statement_on_Maine_Washington/

I'm glad that, unlike Bush, this President's position opposes ballot measures that diminish civil rights, but the statement is terse and timid when it could be bold and convincing. Instead of "The President has long opposed...", the statement could open with "The President opposes..." to make the statement current and potent.

The statement then refers to Obama's HRC speech last Saturday and emphasizes that the White House has already addressed the Advocate's inquiry rather than substantively reasserting the meaning behind those excerpts. It seems to be more important for the White House to argue with the Advocate than reinforce the meaning behind the speech excerpts in a direct communication to the rest of America.

Not only is the above statement not enough, it's weak and qualified and could hurt our fight for marriage equality in Maine. At the HRC dinner, Obama said "committed gay couples" should have the same rights as "married couples," and this is weak. The strong position is there is no difference between gay couples and married couples. But the way Obama framed his sentence implies there's a difference between them, which reinforces the notion that gay couples should have all the rights of marriage as long as it's not called marriage, and that damages efforts of Protect Maine Equality that's trying to preserve marriage equality there.

Obama clearly understands the power of words, and he's good at them, and he failed us again with this weak and somewhat defensive statement.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not only is the above statement not enough, it's weak and qualified and could hurt our fight for marriage equality in Maine. At the HRC dinner, Obama said "committed gay couples" should have the same rights as "married couples," and this is weak. The strong position is there is no difference between gay couples and married couples. But the way Obama framed his sentence implies there's a difference between them, which reinforces the notion that gay couples should have all the rights of marriage as long as it's not called marriage, and that damages efforts of Protect Maine Equality that's trying to preserve marriage equality there.

Obama clearly understands the power of words, and he's good at them, and he failed us again with this weak and somewhat defensive statement.

What this boils down to is that you think Obama is weak because you disagree with him.
He doesn't support gay marriage, so what did you expect from him? a ringing endorsement of a law he doesn't approve of?
He does think there's a difference between them, and he's wrong on that. It's too bad he doesn't take his position the next logical step, to the conclusion that for the sake of religious freedom and equality we should get the word "marriage" out of the law altogether, and replace it with a term open to everyone and defined not by the government, but by those who enter into committed relationships.

 

[hotatlboi]

I don't understand why people get so infuriated with Obama for his stance on gay marriage.

Who was the last mainstream (i.e. not Kucinich/Gravel) candidate to openly support gay marriage?

Oh, that's right - there aren't any mainstream candidates in either party who have supported gay marriage!

That's because, for whatever strange reason, they all see it as political suicide.

This isn't specifically Obama's fault - it's the political culture in America.

Besides, neither the president nor any politician holds the same power as church leaders. This group most culpable in the midst of setbacks, not the president.

Pretty much. Also since Obama said he supported it in 1996, I think it's likely that he probably just changed his opinion out of political necessity. Does that make him a liar? I guess you could say it does, but every politician is a liar to some extent.

 

[Kulindahr]

Pretty much. Also since Obama said he supported it in 1996, I think it's likely that he probably just changed his opinion out of political necessity. Does that make him a liar? I guess you could say it does, but every politician is a liar to some extent.

Or he changed because it looks like the route to victory:

Two-thirds of Americans oppose gay marriage -- about the same portion who consider marriage to be sacred.

Three-fifths of Americans think that gay couples should have all the same privileges and benefits under the law as straight couples.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if we dropped the marriage demand, the battle would be over.


THEN you sue to eliminate "separate but equal" by giving the word marriage back to the people who think it's sacred, and let everyone have whatever neutral term the law might use.

 

[CaptainRush]

Or he changed because it looks like the route to victory:

Two-thirds of Americans oppose gay marriage -- about the same portion who consider marriage to be sacred.

Three-fifths of Americans think that gay couples should have all the same privileges and benefits under the law as straight couples.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if we dropped the marriage demand, the battle would be over.


THEN you sue to eliminate "separate but equal" by giving the word marriage back to the people who think it's sacred, and let everyone have whatever neutral term the law might use.

If we do this and marriage is taken out of government completely, can we still call our spouses our husbands?

 

[Kulindahr]

Pray tell, how should we then deal with the persons who are legally married in several states at present?

You mean people with marriage licenses (a disgusting concept) in more than one state?

 

[Kulindahr]

If we do this and marriage is taken out of government completely, can we still call our spouses our husbands?

You can call them anything you want.

That's the point: the government wouldn't be telling you any longer what your relationship is, you'd be telling them. You could get married, bonded, united, handfasted, hitched, joined, or whatever, and it would all be the same to the government. The only difference would be that the inherent religious connotation of the law would be gone.

 

[Kulindahr]

Don't be disingenuous - I meant that several states now issue same-sex licenses. I don't see how the feds could recognize unions from states such as WA or NJ, but not actual marriage licenses from MA or IA was my point.

Ah -- I see now.

No, they'd recognize whatever kind of partnership or interpersonal union people entered into. Instead of having to get a marriage license -- i.e. asking the government for permission -- you'd just file something like a "Declaration of Union" form, and the government would duly take note of what you'd done.

So a couple getting married in the First Baptist Church of Holy Bones would fill out the form just the same as a gay couple getting partnered at the Long Shot Country Club, and just the same as the two dykes entering into their union at Paul & Paula's Leather Goods & Bar. The government wouldn't care if it was religious, philosophical, platonic, erotic, or involved an orgy with the wedding party (or equivalent); all that would matter was that some of its citizens had told it of their change in status.

 

[NickCole]

What this boils down to is that you think Obama is weak because you disagree with him.

No I think he's weak because the statement is weak. I broke it down for you, it's right there.

He doesn't support gay marriage, so what did you expect from him? a ringing endorsement of a law he doesn't approve of?

See, that's one of the problem with liars.

And I don't mean people who tell a lie now and then, that's normal. But that's different from a liar. And Barack Obama is a liar. He thinks in terms of lies. Some people say all politicians are liars as if that defends Obama but name one other politician, of all the thousands around today or the millions ever, who publicly came out in support of gay marriage and then changed it to be against it. Name one other than Barack Obama.

What do I expect from our President? Truth when it comes to issues that affect the people and policy. If you're a "fierce advocate for gay rights" then be a fierce advocate. Obama's not a fierce advocate for anything or anyone except Obama. He's weak and defensive. If you support gay marriage then support it, if you don't then don't. Other politicians manage to do that. Obama can't because he's weak and a liar.

 

[Kulindahr]

No I think he's weak because the statement is weak. I broke it down for you, it's right there.

It's only weak in your eyes because you don't agree with his position.

...
Barack Obama is a liar. He thinks in terms of lies. Some people say all politicians are liars as if that defends Obama but name one other politician, of all the thousands around today or the millions ever, who publicly came out in support of gay marriage and then changed it to be against it. Name one other than Barack Obama.

Al Gore changed his position on several things from the time he was first in Congress to the time he ran for President. Did you jump on him for those?
And if you don't even know what they were, I'll be tempted to call "hypocrisy".

What do I expect from our President? Truth when it comes to issues that affect the people and policy. If you're a "fierce advocate for gay rights" then be a fierce advocate. Obama's not a fierce advocate for anything or anyone except Obama. He's weak and defensive. If you support gay marriage then support it, if you don't then don't. Other politicians manage to do that. Obama can't because he's weak and a liar.

He doesn't support gay marriage, but he supports people having all the benefits and privileges which come with marriage.
Given that position, there wasn't much he could do in a statement supporting the issues in Maine or Washington, because what they really want is for him to give a statement of support for something he doesn't support.

So if he gave the sort of ringing endorsement you seem to wish, it would be then that he'd be the liar.