Results 1 to 15 of 15
June 17th, 2009 #1
Obama to Extend Benefits to Gay Partners of Federal Employees.
After the justice department defended the Defense of Marriage Act last week, there's been a lot of heat on Obama to live up to his promises to fight for gay rights. Even if it's not official yet, it's a step in the right direction.
What's sad is that 59% of people in that poll disapprove of the action, even though it has nothing to do with "marriage".
Hide this ad by registering as a memberJune 17th, 2009 #2
June 17th, 2009 #3
I thank you for that, Peter...seriously.
No position or belief, whether religious, political or social, is valid if one has to lie to support it.--Alj Mary
Ironically, the concept of SIMPLICITY is most often misunderstood by simple-minded people. --Alj Mary
June 17th, 2009 #4
June 17th, 2009 #5
June 17th, 2009 #6
Another case of damned if you do, damned if you don't, conservatives are upset that the gays get more right and the progressives at pissed that those rights are too few. I don't know, I'd give gays all the same rights all at once and be done with it, instead of having giving reason to grumble every few weeks (been like this here in Quebec for years and we are yet to be destroyed in riots and apocalyspe.)
June 17th, 2009 #7Registered User
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Bellevue, WA
- Thanked 678 Times in 186 Posts
I'm somewhat surprised that Obama caught as much heat as he did on the DOMA. He never said that he was for gay marriage, neither did Clinton.
To be honest, if he's going to nationally recognize gay marriage, I'd rather he do it in his next term.
If he legalized it now he will lose a big chunk of his supporters and run the risk of losing re-election. (yay politics!)
While I'm upset about the DOMA, he has a bigger mess to clean up at the moment. So we should focus on the state repeal.
The Following User Says Thank You to James Kei For This Useful Post:
June 17th, 2009 #8
This whole thing about giving rights and taking away rights is total BS. Why is government involved in this at all? Why do I have to get my marriage certified by the state? From where does this power come from that gets to decide what rights we have and don't have?
I'm telling you this whole issue is focusing on the wrong questions.
We're all born human beings. We all have inherent rights to live our lives as best we can... inherent, meaning it is right by life. Not by government say-so. This goes for both heterosexual human beings and homosexual human beings.
The real question should be, what right does government have in controlling my private life.
The Following User Says Thank You to Chingwa For This Useful Post:
June 17th, 2009 #9Steph Laberis Fanboy
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Thanked 114 Times in 65 Posts
June 17th, 2009 #10Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Thanked 28 Times in 17 Posts
June 17th, 2009 #11
June 18th, 2009 #12
While I can believe that many people who oppose gay marriage based on the "sanctity of marriage" argument are sincere about it, I also think a decent percentage of them use it to avoid sounding like an asshole by admitting "I just don't like the idea of gay people getting married" or falling back on religious doctrine.
Peter, that was an extremely mature thing to say. Thank you.
I agree, Kei. I believe the farthest Obama went was to say he would fight for gay rights, but I don't recall him saying anything specifically about gay marriage. However, people aren't really differentiating between the two since most people consider marriage a right that gay individuals should have. Regardless of what he said, both sides of the media have painted Obama as the messiah and savior of all things liberal, which is probably why he caught so much crap over the DoMA.
Ugh, they altered the article. It now talks about what he actually signed into effect. Which is.. not much. It doesn't even extend health care benefits or pensions. I do believe a great deal of this is treading on egg shells so that he doesn't ruin his chance at re-election.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mock For This Useful Post:
June 18th, 2009 #13
I don't understand, aren't the people opposed to gay rights the same who voted against him in the first place? If so, upsetting the people who put him there is much more damaging than upsetting those who voted Republican anyways.
That and getting it done as early as possible in his mandate would be good since people have such short memory.
June 18th, 2009 #14
June 18th, 2009 #15
This is how it should be. We should be born with certain rights that cannot be stripped by government policy. In a Utopian society this would be the way of it. However, we live in a world where people are constantly oppressed. We also live in a world where a large percentage of people have been conditioned to need someone to tell them what they can and can't do in order to differentiate right from wrong. We aren't often taught why wrong things are morally wrong, only that they are punishable by law. If someone is an asshole to me, my initial instinct is to punch them in the face. What stops me isn't thinking about the aforementioned assholes rights, it's the fact that I don't want to spend the night in jail.
There is a necessity for people who decide what rights are and aren't permissible. The problem is having the right people in that position of power. Yes, injustices will happen when a governing body is given the power to say what people can and can't do. A hell of a lot more would happen if it was up to each individual to decide whether or not they had the right to do anything they wanted. Two gay people might decide they have the right to marry, and someone else might decide they have the right to purge the world of gay people in the name of their religion.
"Government" is often vilified as some kind of alien entity, when really it is a group of people. In the case of the US, it is a group of people (usually) chosen by the majority to make those decisions. Their power comes from the Democratic system and the ability to say that they represent the majority. What rights we have are based on our evolving society and morals. A few hundred years ago people didn't even have the right to life. Very few people today think that black people shouldn't have the right to be free. Few think that women are an inferior sex which shouldn't be allowed the right to vote. In a few dozen years, it will be appalling to think that at one point gay people didn't have the right to marry. Like our science and technology, our morality is continually evolving.
I can't really agree that the government should have zero say in what people do in their private life. By that logic, what right do they have to prevent people from doing crystal meth or having sex with consenting underage individuals? Gay marriage is not a slippery slope, but saying government has no place in what we do in our private life very much is. Our government might be slow to make changes and they might often succumb to bouts of ignorance, but it's a continual work in progress. We have to push for the changes that really need to happen, but don't write off government as having no say in what people do in their private life.
I backspaced so much trying to phrase this correctly that I don't even know if I got my point across there or even made sense.