Legal benefits or more accurately Legal status, is what the core issue is about. They define whole swaths of important issues. Such as who counts as "next of kin" when critical medical decisions need to be made. Joint property issues, Even how domestic disputes are resolved.
There's always power of attorney. And you can have joint property with complete strangers. Yadda yadda. Round and round we go...
|
Legal benefits or more accurately Legal status, is what the core issue is about. They define whole swaths of important issues. Such as who counts as "next of kin" when critical medical decisions need to be made. Joint property issues, Even how domestic disputes are resolved.There's always power of attorney. And you can have joint property with complete strangers. Yadda yadda. Round and round we go...
Power of attorney doesn't even come close to the legal benefits of marriage..
|
Legal benefits or more accurately Legal status, is what the core issue is about. They define whole swaths of important issues. Such as who counts as "next of kin" when critical medical decisions need to be made. Joint property issues, Even how domestic disputes are resolved.There's always power of attorney. And you can have joint property with complete strangers. Yadda yadda. Round and round we go...
Tell that to Clay Greene and Harold Scull.
I, for one, would like to see a return to actual conservatism.***recursion limit reached***Wassup, Evil Lincoln?!?
When did you get back?
I'm not back, I'm procrastinating.
(No kidding here, btw) I'm impressed, EL -- you found a word I actually had to look up, and used it in an agile, pithy manner with great precision. Very nicely done.I, for one, would like to see a return to actual conservatism.***recursion limit reached***
I'm not smart or funny, it's just programming humor.
I'll be the Postmonster and Ross got it on the first take.
I'm not back, I'm procrastinating.I, for one, would like to see a return to actual conservatism.***recursion limit reached***Wassup, Evil Lincoln?!?
When did you get back?
Delayed Reply!!
Oh, well, I hadn't seen you since the good-bye thread. Of course, I don't get out of OTD much...
Anyway, so, you'd get that job or what?
Nope, no job yet. Still working on getting my Receipt. Er. Diploma. Only a matter of days now.
I have a liberal arts degree. Would you like fries with that?
I have a degree in something I really don't want to do.
Well, at least, I don't want to do the boiler-plate IT job smashing my face against windows boxes.
I have some notions, though. We'll see.
I'm going to school in the hopes of becoming a teacher...in a state that just cut teachers' pay by about 30%. Only 4 years left! /wrists
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the President had endorsed this 1 or 2 years ago instead of simply to help his numbers during an election cycle I would have been impressed. Now I am simply disgusted. And the media and the Left don't see this as what it is? Amazing.
We see exactly what this is: The President deciding that the political climate has progressed far enough that he can offer public support for gay marriage without dooming his chances of re-election. If the President had voiced this support three years ago, the conservative backlash might have carried through even stronger, and led to his defeat in November. A President who supports gay rights is great, but I'd rather have a two-term President who gets around to supporting gay rights a little later than a one-term President who support gay rights from the get-go and then gets defeated, leaving us with four years of GOP leadership. Obama came forward with this as soon as he felt he could (or, perhaps, a couple weeks earlier given Biden's "nudge" towards opening up on the issue).
By the way, this is exactly how it should happen. We elected a leader who holds personally progressive beliefs that he is willing to stand behind once the political climate of the country reaches the point where it is not political suicide to do so. Simultaneously, we worked to shift the country's political climate to the point where gay marriage is something that is seen as defensible. This is a successful model. If there's something you want to see changed, this is a good way to do it.
So, the assertion that this was politicly motivated is correct, then.
Well, exactly. Romney's denial of gay rights is politically motivated, too; vote as you will.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They both make me sick, tbh.
That's changing the way things are done in Washington, then?
Kryz, did you really watch all of Obama's campaign speeches from the last election and think he was the first of all the candidates who've said similar things to really mean it? I voted for Obama because he was the better of two options, and plan to do so again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I knew hopenchangity was BS when I first heard it.
So, the assertion that this was politicly motivated is correct, then.
No, his decision to support same-sex marriage was personally-motivated. His decision of when to go public with it, however, was influenced by political constraints. Is that how you'd prefer to view it? What's important here is that Obama had good reasons for what he did. If you want to twist that into a demonization somehow, go right ahead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have to twist it. Not even a little bit. When his staunchest supporters in the media think the exact same thing almost immediately, it doesn't need twisting.
I didn't think it was possible, but people have become even more cynical about the federal government over the last 3 years.
Honestly, it doesn't matter. He's actually on the right side of this issue. Well, now he is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never thought he would. I'd dare say a large portion of those that voted for him did.
It wasn't the right that said "If you want to get re-elected, you need to come out in support of gay marriage."
Marriage is a state issue not federal.
Except when people have to move over state lines.
"Oh hey, you know that marriage you had to get your adopted kid in the other state? Well it no longer counts and we are taking your kid."
This entire situation is because marriage falls between both religious and Legal Contract lines. You take these two separately and it becomes clear that this is simple discrimination.
1 (Legal): You have a contract for shared wealth and property.
2 (Religious): You are favoring 1 religion's beliefs over others. My religion is okay with same sex marriage, why should yours be favored?
I don't have to twist it. Not even a little bit. When his staunchest supporters in the media think the exact same thing almost immediately, it doesn't need twisting.
I didn't think it was possible, but people have become even more cynical about the federal government over the last 3 years.
I blame the supreme court with the money=speech ruling, and the Super-Packs with their negative adds.
You may be right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just absolutely don't get so-called social conservatism.
Fiscal conservatism I get. Though I'm not fiscally conservative, I understand the concern that too much government intervention, economic or otherwise, encroaches on our liberties. My disagreement lies in how much assistance the market requires to deliver optimal outcomes, but the ideology is internally consistent.
But social conservatism seems to be the opposite of freedom. Social conservatives want the government to determine who can get married. They want the government to favor one religion over another. They want the government telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies. How is any of that remotely conservative? And how can people who consider themselves supporters of freedom actively campaign to have our freedoms curtailed? I can't even imagine the cognitive dissonance.
If I were the Republican party I'd look hard at my bedfellows, lest the Libertarians eat my lunch.
But social conservatism seems to be the opposite of freedom. Social conservatives want the government to determine who can get married. They want the government to favor one religion over another. They want the government telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies. How is any of that remotely conservative?
Its conservative in the fact that that's how things USED to work. Back in the good old days.
And how can people who consider themselves supporters of freedom actively campaign to have our freedoms curtailed? I can't even imagine the cognitive dissonance.
Its not freedom when its the ability to do things i disagree with.
(It really should be called the cognitive dissonance party)
I don't have to twist it. Not even a little bit. When his staunchest supporters in the media think the exact same thing almost immediately, it doesn't need twisting.
I didn't think it was possible, but people have become even more cynical about the federal government over the last 3 years.Honestly, it doesn't matter. He's actually on the right side of this issue. Well, now he is.
By "now he is" are you referencing the document he signed in 1996? That was 16 years ago. He backed off it at the beginning of his national career, but reading this document, I don't see how it's possible to claim that he recently switched his position.
By "now he is" are you referencing the document he signed in 1996? That was 16 years ago. He backed off it at the beginning of his national career, but reading this document, I don't see how it's possible to claim that he recently switched his position.I don't have to twist it. Not even a little bit. When his staunchest supporters in the media think the exact same thing almost immediately, it doesn't need twisting.
I didn't think it was possible, but people have become even more cynical about the federal government over the last 3 years.Honestly, it doesn't matter. He's actually on the right side of this issue. Well, now he is.
Uh, doesn't that mean he has switched his position recently, twice?
EDIT: Removed edit. Coffee helps.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, doesn't that mean he has switched his position recently, twice?
EDIT: Removed edit. Coffee helps.
Nah. It means he lied a bit to get elected.
Like politicians do.
Apparently this is a problem for some people...did nobody but me vote for Obama because he was a smart, competent, fairly ruthless, politician who I agreed with on a fair amount of stuff?
Am I the only one who looked into his previous political career while he was running for office? I mean, he was a politician in Chicago by all the Gods. You don't get elected in that city by playing nice in the political arena.
Seriously, folks. Anyone who feels betrayed that Obama's an actual pragmatic politician wasn't paying sufficient attention.
Well, then, let's think this through.
Everytime Citizen Aretas comes on these boards and argues against gay marriage people call him a bigot. Which, you know, fair enough. So, doesn't that mean that at least for the last four years, Obama has been pretending to be a bigot?
Hmm. Democratic politicians pretending to be bigots. Who does that remind me of?
Democratic Politicians Pretending to Be Bigots: The Musical Interlude
Makes me wonder what else Obama is lying about. Is he really further shredding our civil liberties, or is he just pretending? Is he really a war criminal, or is he just pretending? Is he really a Stooge of the Plutocracy (TM), or is he just pretending?
|
|
Well, then, let's think this through.
Everytime Citizen Aretas comes on these boards and argues against gay marriage people call him a bigot. Which, you know, fair enough. So, doesn't that mean that at least for the last four years, Obama has been pretending to be a bigot?
I wouldn't characterize a belief in civil unions instead of gay marriage as bigotry in and of itself. It's certainly an attitude I disagree with, and often symptomatic of bigotry (depending on why it's held), but not enough to make someone a bigot on it's own.
Makes me wonder what else Obama is lying about. Is he really further shredding our civil liberties, or is he just pretending? Is he really a war criminal, or is he just pretending? Is he really a Stooge of the Plutocracy (TM), or is he just pretending?
*shrugs* Look at his record pre-national politics. It's probably pretty characteristic of his true fellings (and, FTR, I don't think any of those acusations, particularly the first and third, are quite fair).
And I loved the musical interlude, BTW. :)
M'lord Dice says no one but the noble classes should be allowed to marry to begin with, regardless of sexual preference; speaking as a member of the underclass, I think property rights are a headache.
(I would have voted for Dennis Kucinich just to see our first goblin president elected.)
I just wanted to add my own musical interlude, it explains itself.
*shrugs* Look at his record pre-national politics. It's probably pretty characteristic of his true fellings (and, FTR, I don't think any of those acusations, particularly the first and third, are quite fair).
Instead of cluttering up this thread with shiznit I've already said a million time, Link
I'm rather surprised the George Wallace comparison has been allowed to fly. People must be sick of talking to me--or sick of this thread. Hee hee!
|
|
Instead of cluttering up this thread with shiznit I've already said a million time, Link
That's...a lot of blaming the President for things he's not directly responsible for (people he appointed doing things he wouldn't need to sign off on, for example), things he simply couldn't have gotten away with doing (prosecuting George W. Bush, for example), and a lot of stuff where he doesn't cite his sources at all, and the sources there are (that I know of, anyway) are really shaky (where's he getting the 40 civilians per target killed, for example).
In short, he has some good points...but a lot of them aren't actually against Obama per se, and many of those that are have little data supporting them (or at least, little in that article).
I'm not even voting for the guy...but that article strikes me as a vast overreaction, as well as part of the trend in America to blame the President for things that happen to occur while he's President whether he's got a lot of involvement in them or not.
I'm rather surprised the George Wallace comparison has been allowed to fly. People must be sick of talking to me--or sick of this thread. Hee hee!
Well, it seems valid if you really think that complete support for gay rights (including civil unions) except for Gay Marriage, is really bigoted and the moral equivalent of supporting segregation...
I already sorta argued it wasn't. :)
I'm rather surprised the George Wallace comparison has been allowed to fly. People must be sick of talking to me--or sick of this thread. Hee hee!Well, it seems valid if you really think that complete support for gay rights (including civil unions) except for Gay Marriage, is really bigoted and the moral equivalent of supporting segregation...
I already sorta argued it wasn't. :)
At one point not too long ago this thread was more than you and I responding to each other at 12 hour intervals.
I am sure that we will have many opportunities to discuss this more real soon. See you then!
No, it means that four the last four years, Obama has been somewhat short on honoring his commitment to come forward on LGBT issues. Now whether prompted by Biden's speech,or other reasons he's decided to publicly state a position of support. What his private feelings are on the matter are just that.Well, then, let's think this through.
Everytime Citizen Aretas comes on these boards and argues against gay marriage people call him a bigot. Which, you know, fair enough. So, doesn't that mean that at least for the last four years, Obama has been pretending to be a bigot?
Hee hee! Yes, the whole Citizen Aretas, Obama, George Wallace comparison was done mostly for fun.
However, I'll ask you: doesn't this mean that Obama has changed his position twice? I'm just asking because Deadmanwalking says no.
Obama's a lawyer by trade; I'd really have to see the wording of his statements to parse whether he has changed his position or just talked about legal realities rather than his personal preference.
I'm think of his statements on the death penalty and the DC handgun case which he seems to accept as settled law without endorsing either, if you see what I mean.
I am not naive. I understand that politicians say a bunch of bullshiznit that they don't mean. I am not arguing that no one should vote for Obama because he changed his position on gay marriage. (No one should vote for Obama because he is a Stooge of the Plutocracy (TM).)
I haven't even read any of these documents, but they tell me that in this 1996 statement he was pro-gay marriage. They tell me that when he ran for president in 2008 he was not pro-gay marriage (IIRC he was pro-civil union, but I might be remembering wrong.) Now, he is pro-gay marriage again.
Is this or is this not changing your position twice?
A very petty, meaningless detail, but I will continue to argue about it for days and days and days because I think that I am right.
Your point, Hitdice, about preference and laws is totally a valid one (see Obama's Bullshit Gay Marriage Announcement above) but irrelevant to my quest to prove that I am right.
M'lord Dice says that pro-gay marriage, not pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage are 3 different things, and to be called bigoted you have be in the anti-gay marriage camp.
Personally, I care little for marriage; goblins do it the street!
(M'lord Dice would like to point out that goblins who do it in the street may well end up living in the same place but, whatevs, he's a stickler.)
[Smacks Dicey the Uncle Tom of goblins]
Yes, yes, I have admitted that the George Wallace comparison was mere trolling. The Drive-By Truckers, however, are awesome.
Also, goblins that are kicked out of the kennels eventually find their way to Sugar Candy Mountain.
Goblins do it in the streets of Sugar Candy Mountain!
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obama's statement is a step in the right direction, but quibbling over whether this is a state or federal issue misses the big picture. It is a human rights issue.
It's discrimination pure and simple. It shouldn't be left up to the states or popular vote, much the same way segregation had to be struck down by the supreme court. It's disgusting that an entire class of people is relegated to second class citizenship because a bunch of ignorant jerks can't get over their own prejudices.