O'Reilly, Miller falsely suggested Obama supported Prop 8
SUMMARY: Fox News' Bill O'Reilly and Dennis Miller falsely suggested President Obama supported California's Proposition 8. After Miller described a call to his radio show in which the caller suggested that "had [Obama] been a California resident," he "would have voted for Proposition 8," O'Reilly stated that the caller "probably listened to The Radio Factor and then called you because we had said that." In fact, Obama opposed Proposition 8.
On the February 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly and Fox News contributor Dennis Miller falsely suggested that President Obama supported California's Proposition 8. During a discussion of the Academy Awards, Miller said that he received "a brilliant call" to his radio show and that the caller, whom he identified as Melanie, "said, 'Does Sean Penn realize that the same president that he's praising as elegant, had he been a California resident, would have voted for Proposition 8?' He said on record that he is not for gay marriage." O'Reilly responded: "We pointed that out. Melanie probably listened to The Radio Factor and then called you because we had said that. But, look, Penn doesn't care about the truth." In fact, Obama opposed Proposition 8, the ballot measure that amended California's constitution to ban same-sex marriage in that state.
In a June 29, 2008, letter to The Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, Obama stated: "I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states." Obama reiterated his opposition to Proposition 8 in a November 1, 2008, interview with MTV. During that interview, Obama also said of Proposition 8: "[W]hen you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
From the February 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: All right, now, the Oscars: You're a show biz kind of guy -- had the lead role in Bordello of Blood, as I remember. And you watched the program. What'd you think?
MILLER: I think I lost for Bordello of Blood to Paul Scofield in Man for All Seasons, if I'm not mistaken.
O'REILLY: And it was close, though. I voted for you.
MILLER: Thank you, Bill. Listen, I did not watch it this year. I watched the last three events. I was out having dinner with my son. I thought it was a little odd when I saw the clip the next day of Heath Ledger winning, which I thought was well-deserved. I thought he was great. I think they could have taken down the Joker thing over his parents' shoulders. I mean, they talk about how he couldn't escape that role and it led him into a dark place.
It might have been a nice touch when they showed the nominees to show that. And then as his parents came up, his beloved mom, dad, and his sister, maybe blend into a beatific, boyish shot of Heath. I would have liked that touch, but that's just me. I'm a bit of a softy.
Listen, I thought that Sean Penn is a great actor. But I had a caller to my show, Bill -- you tell me if this isn't a brilliant call -- a woman named Melanie from Massachusetts. She said, "Does Sean Penn realize that the same president that he's praising as elegant, had he been a California resident, would have voted for Proposition 8?" He said on record that he is not for gay marriage.
O'REILLY: Yeah, I -- right.
MILLER: So I sometimes think --
O'REILLY: We pointed that out. Melanie probably listened to The Radio Factor and then called you because we had said that. But, look, Penn doesn't care about the truth. You know that. He's a Hugo Chavez guy. He's a Raul Castro guy. He just wants to showboat up there. That's what it's all about.
i bet Billo took his style from Miller's weekend update
So, tonight, in his TV show's segments where he reads viewer's emails, he was chastised by a viewer because he didn't correct Miller. O'Reilly said that he should have corrected Miller, and that he knew that what Miller said wasn't true!
Now, wait a minute....
Last night, he said that people would know that what Miller said was true if they'd listened to O'Reilly's show, but today he's saying that he knew that what Miller was saying wasn't true.
Hypocrite alert, liar alert.
"Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
Too bad the Troglodytes can't grasp that concept.
There has only been a single constitutional ammendment in the istory of this country that contracted the liberty of it's citizens. It shares the distinction of being the only onle in the history of this country to be repealed. (Are you free tonight? Do you, uh... want to go out for a DRINK after work?) ;)
Usually immorality is considered illegal (murder, rape, stealing, lieing). Too bad liberals can't grasp that concept.
Maybe it's just me, but was Miller ever funny...say 20 years ago...or has he always been a jingofascist a$$hole?
his first couple of weekend updates were ok. but then he tried too hard to be like chevy chase. and went downhill from there
I always felt like Dennis Miller was trying to hard to be the vanilla Eddie Murphy without teh funny. Just a smart@$$. Ruined Weekend Update by trying to upstage the premise.
Norm MacDonald was the best weekend update anchor EVER!
2nd best. nobody can touch chevy
Miller's career seems to be on a parallel track with that of Kirk Cameron.
yeah but krik is gaining a cult following since he has been doing the Left Behind movies.
ive read all the books, they are a pretty good story, though i doubt any of it could happen.
I watched the first movie, and thought it was corny as hell. The "message" was a little ham-handed, but that seems to be a common problem with Religious fiction.
read the book, its better. the second movie was a bit better thathe first but i havent seen the third one yet
The fundies can kiss my "left behind."
And the right one, too.
I think the story goes that Dennis Miller turned into a right-wing hack because of 9/11. When it comes to "changing America," the terrorists won in Miller's case.
Actually what happened to cause him to change was before 9/11.
A woman in his neighborghood was shot and killed at a bank ATM machine on Riverside Drive, at about Coldwater Canyon in the Valley. It was right around the corner from where he lived. He freaked, made a big deal about it, and immediately moved to Montecito.
It's all he talked about for a year...
Yeah, sort of... But he really became unhinged over the invasion of Iraq. Al-Quaeda's weapon of fear got to him after 9/11 and he became a quivering ball of p*ssy who fell right in line with neo-con policy.
He was when Rick Overton was his chief writer. When Overton left, Miller's inherent ignorance was exposed for all to see.
Why'd he leave?
I'm guessing that he (Overton) wasn't really interested in making fascism hip.
Can anyone in show business fall any farther down the ladder than Miller has?
I mean he's a toady for a toady. How sad is that?
Next we'll be seeing him in Metamucil®, Flomax® and Depends® commercials.
If anyone has embraced his inner bedwetter, it's Miller.
He'll be in "Smiling Dennis" ads for male-enhancement pills.
I agree that Obama is disappointing on this front, but he had to walk this tightrope to avoid losing the Democrats and Independents who are still embracing Bronze Age homophobia.
I don't think he had to invite Warren. If he didn't, he could easily say that Warren misrepresented his position on proposition 8, which would have been perfectly understandable. It's hard to imagine that would cause any sort of backlash among Democrats and Independents.
I agree there. My sense is that the Obama team is trying to put a chink in the Republican Party's monopoly on the Conservative Christian vote. I think it's futile, but I admire them for trying.
[Obama] had to walk this tightrope to avoid losing the Democrats and Independents who are still embracing Bronze Age homophobia.
Nerz, that's the truth. I find it funny that conservatives will use issues like this as a lead-in to asking liberals how they could possibly support a candidate. A presidential campaign is basically a popularity contest with a few hundred million people deciding whose policies and personality offend them the ;east.
Just as GOP contenders need to fudge their positions a little, pretending to consider gay people and poor people humans, Dems need to play to the middle by taking some more backward positions.
There are those fence-sitting Americans , the undecideds who are not quite misinformed enough to be Republicans, but not informed enough to see what a worthless cult today's GOP has become.
I'm realistic enough to realize it may be a few years before a presidential candidate can enthusiastically support gay marriage without risking turning over the election to those who equate homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia.
Heck, I've accepted that I have to vote for a candidate that believes in (or at least needs to publically profess) a belief in a supernatural creation of the Universe. That's a pretty important difference of opinion, but I'm realistic. I'm on a judging commitee with the citizens of this entire country, and that includes a huge number of people who don't do a lot of thinking for themselves.
The GOP has to reach up the ladder a little, by supporting science and civil rights a little more than their base finds comfortable, the Dems need to stoop down a little , not progressing too quickly for slower moving average Americans who may be frightened over to the Repub side .
I can say I'm disappointed by Obama's position on gay marriage, but it's really more of a disappointment in an America that demands our leaders promise to restrict the freedoms of certain groups in order to make the majority a little less uncomfortable.
O'Reilly and Miller, of course, aren't even scratching the surface of the issue, they're still bogged down in that limited fringe Republican (sorry, Independent) thought that is unable to see the huge area between hearty approval and prohibition. The "None-of-yer-bizness" zone.
Indeed. Democratic politicians public rejection of gay marriage is "disappointing", while Republican rejection of gay marriage is a homophobic, visceral reaction of wingnuttery.
I'm not sure you can distill the Col's post down like that.
In fact, you've misrepresented what he said.
Par for the course for right-wing nutjobs. I know, Bruce, you're gonna say, 'But I voted for Obama'...
That doesn't mean that you cannot be wrong. In this case, you are.
I reject blanket statements about any particular group. You probably would think that I'm against gay marriage when in fact I'm not.
Isn't that a blanket statement about two particular groups?
Any Democrat refer to gay marriage like Santorum or any of the doom and gloom ministers who say it will end marriage as we know it?
I'll answer for you - NO!
oh, so I am supposed to sit down and shut up when a Democrat tells me he opposes my civil right because he really does like me, but I am supposed to tell a Republican to go screw himself and call him a homophobe. More patronizing nonsense from Democrats.
Nope. But when has a democrat opposed your civil rights?
you didn't read anything I just wrote, did you?
I did, but I didn't see any content in it.
Which group is more likely to support your civil rights? The one who's opposition to gay marriage is grudging and there out of necesity, or the one whose opposition to gay marriage is visceral and part of the concrete foundation of there platform? You a fool to say the two are the same. You're right to be disappointed by the one, but you should be right terrified of the other. It's not the same thing by a damn sight.
neither support my press for my civil rights regarding this issue. One puts their bigotry out there for me to see and examine, in my face, like it or leave it. The other pats me on the head and keeps me under their thumb with gratitude while they say they oppose my civil rights publicly, but look down on me nonetheless and say they are they for me, and to trust them. gee, what courage.
Jeez, but suck to be you. Maybe you should start your own country and then maybe by throwing tantrums you'll get what you want. Right now you're living in fantasy land.
I don't think anyone ever won their rights by whining, "poor me."
BINGO!
Exactly, Bruce, you're catching on!
OK, you got me painting with a broad brush there, but I hope you know me well enough that a lot was tongue-in-cheek. I know it's probably only 96-97% of Republicans who don't have opposable thumbs.
I think you misunderstood my main point, though. I can only be disappointed by those I have any sort of expectations from.I'm not going easier on Obama than the Republicans, I'm saying that I expect almost no progress from the far-right faction, so I can't be disappointed.
It's sort of a Bizarro-world Prodigal Son thing.
Very well said.
Col
I could not stop laughing as I read your rant, and then I just felt sorry for you. How hard it must be for you to vote for someone who believes in God, or believes in the bible. It must be so traumatic. And to be surrounded by so many people who believe in God, and so by your standard can not think for themselves. It must be awful. And you wonder why libs are seen as elitist, and not the party of values and morals. Wonder how that can be?
This seems to be a pretty common symptom with you wingnuts here, the uncontrollable laughter at things you don't understand. Maybe it's the medication.
I don't know where you got the idea that it's hard or traumatic for me to vote.Please don't project your whiny victim mentality on me, I'm ok with most of this stuff. That should have been obvious by my comments that I'v accepted things and am realistic.
I never equated religious people and those who can't think for themselves.Again, it may be your meds.
Please don't waste any more of your time or energy feeling sorry for me. There are others who need the sympathy so much more; people's whose definition of marriage is under assault, those who are having their hard-earned money confiscated,, the poor souls who are being persecuted for trying to teach their religion as science-- those are the victims, they need you.
Didn't Obamaham state that gay marriage was an issue to be left up to the individual states (or something to that effect)?
Obamaham is not a state. It's a town, in the STATE of Nebraska...
I'm going to vacation in the Obamahamas.
While there, are you going to hook up with an Obamahamamama?
I certainly hope so.
Don't forget your Obamajamas.
He paid lip service to that, but it's nonsense. Tha vast magotiry (by like a 50 to 1 ratio) of laws regarding marriage are FEDERAL laws. Since when can STATES take awat rights protected by the FED? Answer: they can't. We had a little schirmish over that about 150 years or so ago. (We kept it civil in any case.)
Wow. "mogotiry". Whatta word! Obviously, that should say MAJORITY.
MMFA? EDIT FEATURE!!!
i wouldnt call 600k casulties civil.
and sherman's march through the south was even less so
Uh... It's just a play on words, dude. I'm not the one that decided to call it the "Civil" War. (Nor would you be the first to point out that there's nothing "Civil" about war.) In any case, states rights do not supercede federal law. I think that just about prooves it.
Did you mean long ignorance. Just checking.
You made me laugh out loud! :) Long ignorance would have fit perfectly!
The coffee on my monitor is your fault. Thanks for the laugh.
I'm still waiting for the Republitoads to admit that Sean Penn was right about Iraqi's lack of WMDs. He was viciously vilified for expressing that truth, and they've never admitted that he was right, much less apologized for trashing his patriotism.
Sadly, you will be waiting forever. Admitting they were wrong and apologizing are not Republican strong points. They will just continue to label him as a "Hollywood liberal." Besides, don't you realize that Hollywood is trying to push their homosexual agenda onto the rest of us? Equal right for gays and lesbians? Stop trying to corrupt our children Hollywood!
I read on a VERY conservative blog that Hollywood is also responsible for us electing Obama because, wait for it.....
They have spent decades making commercials and television programs that have intelligent-appearing black people "talking down" to ignorant white people, and that has "brainwashed" us into believing that black people can be intelligent and knowledgeable.
And that, is the conservative, southern, backwoods, older American in a nutshell. The only one able to resist the brainwashing.
Funny, whenever I refer to something withoout a link, I am asked to supply one, how come that standard does not apply to you too?
One reason might be that Mrs. T. doesn't have a record of being full of sh*t.
Another reason could be that no one was interested enough to ask for one.
So the GOP pushed out "Bobby" Jindal.
It's Hollywood vs. Bollywood!
I was thinking of Sean Penn while listening to that kid the Republicans let give the response to the presidents address the other night.
He was yammering on and on about boats and hurricanes and a Democratic sheriff who just happens to be dead now. Of course the dead guy can't vouch for the truthfullness of the story.
Anyway, I remember how they hammered Sean Penn in wingnut circles for going to New Orleans with his boat trying to rescue people. It's funny how they can spin everything to make them look heroic and everyone else to look like a commie bastard.
This is a reply to Mrs. T. Wow, that is amazing, but it really shouldn't shock me. They(conservatives)critized Holder for his "coward" remarks concerning race. I remember the racist spew by Pat Buchannan on "Hardball". I evenread a con. poster here say "how they don't see race." Then in Cali. I think it was a mayor sending out a mailer showing watermelons on the white house lawn,with a caption reading there will be no easter egg hunt this year. Then when challenged on it's obvious racist content saying, he didn't know it was racist or would be offensive. I'am just flabbergasted.
you cant trash the patriotism of someone who has none.
Which is why we don't trash yours.
Did you think that up all by yourself? I am impressed. You had a thought, and tried to make some laugh besides your wife at bed time.
Did you think that up all by yourself? I am impressed. You had a thought, and tried to make some laugh besides your wife at bed time.
You know, the way Prop 8 was written, it's almost easy to misrepresent your stand on it. I could very easily say I was for Prop 8 because I support gay rights, without reminding myself that Prop 8 was against gay rights. Heck, I think a lot of people just thought, "Prop 8 = gay rights" and left it at that.
You might have a point if it weren't for the throngs of churches and religious folks who flooded California with their protests and their disgusting commercials supporting Prop. 8.
Now why aren't these churches being taxed? If they want to have that kind of influence in an election, they should pay taxes. Period.
What pi$$ed me off the most was that there were religious groups from as far away as South Carolina who put their two cent's worth (and more!) into California's election.
What right does ANYONE outside of California have to influence elections in California? Answer: NONE.
I'm sure that right-wing whackjobs in other states would be crazy angry with Californians if the tables were turned...
There's good reason to believe that there was some political maneuvering going on with all this. Apparently the Mormon Church spearheaded the support for Prop 8, and they would obviously like to see Mitt Romney in the White House.
For Mitt to have a chance, he has to overcome the Evangelical Christians' distrust of Mormonism. What better way than to openly champion the anti-gay bigotry shared by Evangelicals and Mormons?
If any of this doesn't make sense. Just remember that Roger Ailes is O'Reilly's boss.
You are wrong on this one:
Here's Obama's actual quote from the MTV interview:
"I think it's unnecessary," Obama told Sway, in response to a question sent in by Gangstagigz from San Leandro, California. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
Furhter down in the article, author Chris Harris makes an assumption that Obama opposed Prop 8:
"In addition to expressing his opposition to Proposition 8, Obama said he believes and supports "strong civil unions ..."
But the fact is, Obama never comes right out and says "I oppose Prop 8".
Actually, YOU are wrong, Goodfella57.
Obama did not support Proposition 8, which would have amended the constitution of the state of California to allow only heterosexual unions.
It's true, Obama does not support gay marriage. But he also does NOT support amending the constitution of a state to BAN gay marriage.
See the difference?
you either support gay marriage, or you do not. if you do then you should be able to have the balls to support all that's related to that. If you do support it, or say you do, but are worried about the political ramifications of a hot button issue, then you are a spineless politician, when it comes to this issue.
I wouldn't expect you to understand nuance, JamesB. Such logic eludes right-wingers. There is a big difference. You don't have to support gay marriage to understand that amending a constitution to BAN gay marriage entirely is wrong.
And that's what Prop. 8 does. It BANS gay marriage using our state Constitution.
Sorry dude, but constitutions aren't written to DENY rights. They are written to GUARANTEE rights.
I would think it's better to take a middle position that is palatable to voters and take gradual steps towards gay rights. Going too far too fast only puts conservatives in office who won't take any steps towards it at all.
so it's all about taking the middle position, another way to say straddling the fence, and being palatable to voters, another way to say do the politically expedient thing. of course.
It's called choosing your battles.
I don't see how you can oppose people doing something politically expedient that serves your personal interests. The nature of politics is what it is. If you would rather have politicians who support unpopular positions and then lose, putting conservatives in charge who won't do a damn thing for your cause, then go for it.
which is why I could never be a politician.
That's the price of living in a Republic... compromise is the only way to get stuff done. I remember when Clinton stepped in a political minefield with the whole gays-in-the-military issue; it gave the Republicans a club with which to beat him over the head, and things really just went downhill from there.
I truly wish that Obama would take a stronger stand against the bigots, but he has obviously decided that it's not the hill he wants his presidency to die on. Maybe, after he's had some legislative successes and the economy is out of its tailspin, he can then afford to take on this issue. We'll see.
In the meantime, it would only become a huge political dogfight, and he wouldn't be likely to gain much traction on it.
The gays in the military issue is a perfect comparison. I don't like DADT either, but it's a stepping stone. Going for gay marriage would create a huge backlash. As it is, people are sort of backed into the corner with civil unions. If you don't support those, then you're labeled a homophobe, because that has much broader public support. When people get more used to civil unions, the numbers will go up for gay marriage, and then it will be politically viable. I wish we could just establish it right now as well, but I don't think that fits in with the reality of the situation.
What planet are you from anyway?
Every positive step we've taken as a nation, we've taken by appealing to the reasonable middle. That's where Lincoln thought our "better angels" were.
sorry, on my planet it is not unreasonable for two men to enter into a legal marriage and have the same rights as heterosexual couples. It doesn't require baby steps, it requires leaders who lead.
Having leaders who support that requires they get elected first.
so they lie to get elected, and then they will fix things? incredible.
If they have unpopular positions, sure. It doesn't do any good to propose something that's going to cause a backlash, because that's only going to set your movement back.
you've been a Democrat too long.
I'm supporting your cause. I'm just aware that you can't always get what you want when you want it, and asking for too much too soon is a bad strategy.
it isn't a cause, it's simply respect for my civil rights. and I never said you didn't support that.
It's not a cause? And obviously I respect your civil rights. That's exactly why I want to go about establishing them in the most effective way possible.
Thats what dems have ALWAYS done.
especially liberals, whenever they spinelessly don't really want to take a principled stand on a particular issue then they call it nuanced, and complicated, and that it can't be understood by those with black and white thinking. so funny, it is.
Yup, it is funny that you don't get the nuance about the nuance.
"But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about."
Proposition 8 dealt with the Constitutional support of gay marriage. If he says that you shouldn't play around with constitutions to prohibit any couple from being together, then that means he opposes proposition 8. I don't know how you think "that's not what America's about" could possibly be anything but opposition.
But the fact is, Obama never comes right out and says "I oppose Prop 8".
Actually, he did. He was asked about it before the election, and he said that in the specific case of California, he didn't think gay marriage should be overturned.
I've said before that while I don't agree with Obama's centrist "don't offend anyone" position, I don't begrudge him trying to get elected and understanding the current political atmosphere.
you can't blame the rightwing for this confusion, blame Obama. He opposes gay marriage but in the same breath says he opposed prop 8, huh? He is spineless on this issue and the left gives him a pass, amazing. he wants to have it both ways, well take a stand and let the chips fall where they may. Show people and lead on this issue, that is the commendable thing to do, not equivocate and straddle the fence.
How do you feel about orange shag carpeting in your living room? Don't be spineless, don't straddle the fence. I expect you to either install it, or propose banning it by state law.
Obama's problem is that he forgets that Republicans can't understand nuanced, well thought out responses. Obama was against prop 8 because it restricts the rights of gay and lesbian couples. Obama is FOR civil unions because it guarantees the rights of gay and lesbian couples without "redefining" the definition of marriage.
I'm not gay so I don't entirely understand their position, but I am not sure why they push for changing the definition of marriage. Changing the definition seems to get conservatives up in arms, so why not just push for civil unions, which will guarantee your rights. I think laws that uphold civil unions would have a much easier time being passed.
nuanced, well thought out responses? Is that what the left calls it when their liberal politicians try to explain why they can't take a principled stand one way or another on an issue? sorry, it's not what I call it.
Why is supporting a state Constitution not a principled stand?
I realize it's impossible for Black & White thinkers to grasp such complicated concepts.
that is such a cop out, you can rationalize your giving Obama a pass on this all you want and come up with a ton of excuses, about nuance and other crap, but it's baloney. and you know it.
This homo isn't giving Obama a pass. I disagree wholeheartedly with Obama's stance on gay marriage. He's wrong, but that doesn't mean that (1) he wasn't the better candidate (he obviously was) and (2) that I cannot disagree with him but still give him my vote. On other issues we mostly agree; therefore, he got my vote.
What is it with you wingnuts who think that a candidate has to be in lock-step with your beliefs in order to get your vote?
i never said he didn't get my vote or I would never vote for him. But I am not afraid to call him on this issue because I believe he hasn't not taken a principled stand on a controversial issue about civil rights. I would be more respectful of him on this issue if he was consistent either way, but to say he opposes gay marriage and opposes prop 8 is the politically expedient choice, but weak and spineless too. Sorry, that is the way I see it.
Did you read the above post from commonsense?
Sorry dude, but constitutions aren't written to DENY rights. They are written to GUARANTEE rights.
What about that don't you understand?
But your response to this question is far different than most here. You do two things. First, you flat out say Obama is wrong on this, and Second, you say you still like him better than the other guy. Almost all of the other posters here are simply trying to dance around it and telling how nuanced he is, or how complicated the issue is, and crap like that. You have the guts to call it what it is.
You're talking about two different things. The "nuance" is that Obama opposed Proposition 8 because it was an attempt to supercede the California constitution. So you can oppose gay marriage and oppose Proposition 8 at the same time. O'Reilly and Miller don't seem to grasp that.
agree. and look at the fool brabantio saying it's perfectly acceptable to oppose gay marriage and prop 8. that would be like saying it's perfectly ok to oppose civil rights for black people as long as the constitution does not do so. it's utter nonsense.
I'm saying it's not inconsistent to oppose gay marriage and to oppose proposition 8 at the same time. Your "oppose civil rights for black people as long as the constitution does not do so" doesn't even make sense.
I think Commonsenseliberal said it pretty well. I remember that Conservatives vilified John McCain before he got the nomination. Once he was nominated, they gradually fell in line and voted for him. How is that any different?
I don't remember a politician EVER with whom I agreed on everything.
OK- let's try this out...
In MLB there's the American league (I'll call them the 'gay' league because they INSIST on the designated hitter rule be ENFORCED upon ALL members of the league!) and the National league (I'll call them the 'all change is bad unless it is changing the American league' league).
Now, as the commisionor of BOTH leagues that both do the SAME THING (play baseball, which is an analogy for 'living' in the real world, james) you may privately HATE the designated hitter rule BUT publically NOT ENDORSE the National league's attempt to FORCE the American league to 'play' by ONLY their rules. The commish would be denying half of baseball its own rights! It's called COMPROMISE. And 100% of all people on this planet do it to get along.
This analogy isn't perfect, but I just tried to dumb it down for ya' james.
sorry, when it comes to basic civil rights, I am not in a mood to compromise.
Nor to think, apparently.
Who ever said that there was a definition change? You've bought into the right-wing meme that there is a push to change some definition.
Marriage is marriage.
See: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by Boswell. This scholarly work provides the basis for understanding that marriage was actually redefined by CHRISTIANS as being between a man and a woman.
Christians don't have the sole right to decide what a definition is. And just because you grew up with marriage being between a man and a woman doesn't mean it's the actual DEFINITION of the word. It's just how YOU were raised with it.
I've not read that book, so you may be right about that. I haven't done extensive research on the word marriage and it's evolution.
I do know that according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary that the first defination of marriage is: 1a (1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contracting relationship recognized by law. (2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of traditional marriage.
I agree that Christians don't have the sole right to decide what the definition is; however, I do believe that a majority of Americans define marriage as between a man and a woman and they don't feel inclined to change the definition through the law.
I do believe that most Americans are willing to grant gays and lesbians the same rights as heterosexual couples. I think that if civil unions grant those same rights without calling it "marriage" they would pass in a majority of the states.
Personally, I think it's a silly semantic arguement. I don't care what it's called as long as gays and lesbians are granted equal rights. What I don't know, is if it matters to gays and lesbians what it's called? Is it very important to gays and lesbians that it's called marriage or is calling it a civil union with the same rights as marriage acceptable?
It does matter to us what it is called. See my post below.
A majority of Americans might define marriage as between a man and a woman. A majority of Americans might believe that people with the middle name of Hussein are muslim terrorists. Doesn't make it right, or correct.
I don't see why expanding the definition to include same sex couples would be a problem. Definitions of words have been changed throughout history.
In 1800, a "race" indicated a contest of speed between horses or people. Now it also includes cars and airplanes and boats. Does that mean that a horse race is not a race any more?
Again, who would be harmed?
I don't have a problem with changing the definition. No one would be harmed by including same sex couples in the definition.
I do think that the movement for equal rights for gays and lesbians is harmed if we focus on the definition rather than the function. For some reason, many Americans are against changing the definition but they are not against equal rights for gays and lesbians.
#2 in your post says "the state of being united to a person of the same sex..."
You are right. Commonsenseliberal pointed out that the main definition of marriage was changed by Christians to be between men and women. I think we are getting confused about the functional definition. It is my understanding that the law in most states has defined marriage as #1 while the history of the word includes #2 but is not leagally recognized. Functionally and legally, most people in the US define marriage as between man and woman and don't want to change the laws to reflect the definition to include #2.
That's a great summary. Nice response. :)
My understanding is that civil unions don't provide all the benefits as gay marriage.
It doesn't follow that Obama would oppose proposition 8 because of gay rights. That would mean they have a right to get married, in which case it makes no sense to oppose gay marriage. His position would seem to be that a state Constitution trumps public opinion, no matter what anyone thinks about it.
His position is correct then. The constitution (whether U.S. or State) always trumps public opinion. If it didn't we'd be able to vote slavery back into existence, vote to kill or imprison others for whatever reasons we deem acceptable, etc.
Remember folks, this is not a democracy. Public opinion doesn't matter when it comes to rights guaranteed by constitution.
Exactly It's called avoiding mob rule and the tyranny of the majority against the minority.
You have a point. It seems that both sides are hung up on semantics. Personally, I side with the Gays on this issue. I have seen no viable argument that shows how allowing Gay Marriage would harm anyone.
That being said, the Gay Rights folks could accept Civil Unions as a good first step, then work toward confronting the bigotry against Gay Marriage later on.
Of course, my guess is that the Troglodytes would then come out against Civil Unions, too. They just mask their bigotry as a concern for the "institution of Marriage". It's nonsense.
Sorry. My partner and I will NOT accept civil unions. It's not the same as marriage and is akin to the 'separate but equal' clause.
Civil Unions are a slap in the face. Civil Unions say, "You're not good enough for marriage, but we'll throw you these crumbs instead - just to shut you up."
It's a matter of equality. Civil Unions are NOT equality.
Nerz - I wasn't pointing my criticism at you, you were just the one who brought it up. : )
That's okay... I totally understand your point. I'm just thinking in terms of pragmatic incrementalism.
I have asked conservatives time and time again to give me one logical reason why Gay Marriage should not be legal, and they just can't do it.
The really sad part is that a large number of religious Democrats just cannot get past their own homophobia. Here in Tennessee, an anti Gay Marriage Amendment passed by a 2-1 margin. Almost 50% of the Democrats voted for it. I was embarrassed and outraged.
exactly my point, my partner will not accept it either. Which is why I don't let politicians waffle around the edges on this issue. Look, I don't despise Obama for this, but I also don't give him a pass either. in my mind, you can't say you oppose prop 8 and then say you oppose gay marriage at the same time, the two don't gel. and politicians do it all the time on controversial issues.
Actually, the two positions do gel, because there's a difference between opposing gay marriage and believing that a state Constitution can or should be superceded for that purpose.
why would you trumpet how supportive you are of gay rights, mention them in nearly every speech, trot all that acceptance out all the time, and then say you don't think that two men or women who choose to enter in a legal relationship identical to heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry? in other words, he loves us gay people, but not when it's politically risky, sorry, only up to a point.
Because it's a political risk that you don't want to take.
You don't really know that he genuinely opposes gay marriage. It's possible he knows it should be taken in steps, so he has to say he doesn't support that policy when in truth he does. How would you know the difference?
so not only are you defending politicians who won't take political risks, you are saying just because they say they oppose something, we really don't know if they are telling us the truth or not? wow, you really have high standards for your Democrats, don't you? sorry, I have higher.
Obviously. If they take a position because of the political risks, then clearly they would have to hide their actual views. Otherwise it wouldn't do any good.
Like it or not, politics is a game. To think that people can be or are completely forthright all the time is naive in the extreme.
your laissez faire attitude when it comes to standards for politicians only feeds what you have described even more, and offers them shelter and an excuse for a lack of forthright principled stands. I will not do it, sorry.
If you have some way of changing the system, I'm all ears. Wishing that things were different doesn't make it so.
if you want my take, here it is. The opponents of prop 8 were miserable. none of their ads showed gay people, normal, tax paying, boring gay people in relationships, their ads showed straight people saying this or that, they hardly ever mentioned the word "gay". It was repulsive, it's almost like they thought doing so would be detrimental. I find that offensive. I agree that it may take time, but the best way is to put gay couples and gay people out front and center, not hide them out of some spineless fear. And I expect leaders who feel as I do to say so, not hide those views until they become more politically friendly to do so. that is all I am saying.
I agree the campaign was poor. And bear in mind that when you talk about putting gay couples front and center, that's exactly why your civil rights are going to win out in the end. Not long ago I talked to one of my stepson's friends who used to not like gay people, then he met one and it turned him around. That's what's going to happen on a much larger and more gradual scale for the country. I'm sure someday we'll have an openly gay President, but if we had nominated a gay candidate last year we would have gotten destroyed. The country just isn't ready.
If you agree that it takes time, then you can't expect people to espouse views that the public isn't ready for. That's part of the process, to wait until it's politically possible to reach for that.
for me, it isn't, or shouldn't be, some huge political risk for any politician to calmly and openly talk about why gay people deserve the same civil rights to marry as anyone. When you have politicians, especially Democratic ones who are "supposed" to be more accepting, come out and say well, uh, no, not MARRIAGE, it only gives shelter to those who think it's not right. It doesn't move anything, or advance anything, it widens the divide, not narrows it. When politicians stop doing this, then real progress will be made.
I don't understand the logic there. A position of compromise does not widen the divide. And it's just as easy to say that adopting the less popular opinion helps to validate the opposing opinion by comparison.
Of course it shouldn't be a political risk to support gay marriage, because people should be open to the idea. But since that's not the case, it doesn't do you any good to act as if it is, or wish that it was. You have to work with the reality as it happens to be.
this is why I could never be a Democrat. maybe not you, but so many of their special interest groups are so used to being patronized and paid lip service too, that they think that is just fine, normal. Deomcratic politicians are so used to being two faced, say one thing during an election that will get them in office, and then wink and nod to one of their special interest groups with a patronizing pat on the head saying they will fix it all when they get in office. And then it becomes a cycle that keeps those interest groups beholden to Democrats unending, which is what they bank on to keep them in power. It disguists me to be patronized. And that is exactly what this entire issue is about, you have as much as admitted that with the way you have come to accept politcians being slippery and dishonest in getting elected regarding this issue. I want no part of it, sorry.
I think the same sort of thing exists for many Republicans dealing with the religious right. How many positions did McCain shift on in order to appeal to the "base"? And as if Sarah Palin was really a qualified candidate for Vice President? Really, to argue that Democrats hold some sort of monopoly over "patronizing" is absurd.
And again, I didn't say I like it. It's just how it is, whether you want any part of it or not.
no argument on the religious right and the Republicans, they absolutely do pander and treat them the same way Democrats treat gay people.
I understand your position but if Obama had come out in favor of same-sex marriage it could have cost him the election. Putting your cause back decades.
Call him spineless or just another politician if you want to, but pragmatically would you have liked your chances better under a McCain/Palin administration?
We're more divided now that we've been since the Civil War, maybe even more so. And the other side does not act or speak reasonably. There are no shades of gray just good and evil and any kind of rights for gays are considered by them to be pure evil.
You've got a legitimate complaint, but Obama was your only chance to ever reach your goal. .
what if we were having this discussion and it was forty or fifty years ago and I was black, or if I was a black man and wanted to marry my girlfriend, who is white. Would you offer the same advice to me, to be satisfied, to be patient, let politicians pat my head, wait it out, be grateful for this one because it would have been worse with that one? I doubt it.
Seriously? Of course people would understand that, especially in the south. Stand up for interracial marriage and then your racist opponent beats you, and then it takes even longer to get anything done. That's only supporting what's being said to you.
do you believe politicians should take principled stands on anything that is not popular? you are free to accept their spinelessness, I do not. They are not just anyone, they are leaders in our society who vote on our laws, shape public opinion and lead and persuade in difficult times and situations. I expect more than excuses. we will never see eye to eye on this, your standards are much lower.
I don't think politicians should take stands that are going to cost them elections and set their causes back however many years. It's strategy, and that doesn't give way to a set of overly-idealistic standards.
i admire politicians who take stands in spite of whether of not they think they will win an election. So if they do get elected I know exactly where they stand. not many of those around, sadly.
And what if they don't get elected? Then you're getting someone who has no interest in your cause at all. The priorities are out of whack. It's more important to further your goals than to know exactly where someone stands.
not for me, for you it may be different. I would rather know exactly who and what I am facing and/or dealing with, whether I agree with them or not. if my "goals" or "causes" are built on trickery and political shenanigans they aren't worth it, for me. I'd rather have someone in office who disagrees with me on every issue, then we operate from a standpoint of honesty, not illusions and posturing.
Like I said, go for it. Just don't be surprised if that path takes you much longer to reach equality.
as long as my path isn't taken with unprincipled, spineless, patronizing, two-faced duplicitious elected officials, then I prefer the long way home. for the record, I don't put Obama in that category necessarily, but i have no respect for him on this particular issue.
I guess jamesb must really, really want to get married. Personally I wish he were allowed to, but stomping your feet and demanding that your president espouse a politically damaging position is self-defeating. It's called having a strategy. Civil rights didn't happen overnight and gay marriage won't either.
thank you for your patronizing concern, i am touched. you just illustrated my point and are too clueless to even see it.
I don't think anyone else sees it either. How was it patronizing?
I guess jamesb must really, really want to get married
I don't expect you to see it either, so i am not surprised. as i said, you have been a Democrat too long.
Could you explain the problem with what he said, instead of just quoting?
no, i will not. It's patronizing pure and simple, for gods sake. if you are that incredibly clueless to see it, i have no interest in furthering some huge long argument to persuade you. Chris was so right about you on the other thread from yesterday, and I knew it from your endless arguments with Tommy, as I told you a few times....you just like to argue for it's own sake. Well, do it with tommy or someone else then.
"exactly my point, my partner will not accept it either. Which is why I don't let politicians waffle around the edges on this issue."
That sounds to me like you really want to get married. But if you want to object to something without reason, nobody can stop you.
i was specifically responding to the seperate but equal idea of civil unions, if you had bothered to post my comments in context instead of your usual out of context slipperyness. it had nothing to do with my panic about not being able to satisfy my urge to marry my partner.
I'm not trying to take anything out of context, you genuinely sound like you want to get married. There's nothing wrong with that, so I don't see the problem. I just wanted to know why it's patronizing.
because it's condescending, and this thread is not about me or my feelings. you won't change my mind, so stop trying. if you thought it was fine, I couldn't care less, in fact as I said, I would expect it of you.
I'm not trying to change your mind, just asking a question. When you say someone illustrates your point, then I would expect there's something tangible behind that instead of pure emotional reaction.
Patronizing? Condescending? Here's a little something for you, jamesb:
don't worry, i am not wounded. I know, liberals are so used to being patronized that they can't recognize it anymore, it's commonplace, so as I said, I am not surprised.
You're hurt alright, because you're nothing more than a spoiled brat. "Boo hoo, Mr. Obama won't come out and support gay marriage because I want to get married NOW so I'm not going to support him".
As a whole, you're also quite ignorant. The gay marriage issue will be decided in the courts, and Obama will likely appoint 1 or 2 Supreme Court justices in his term - ones that will likely side in YOUR FAVOR. So with or without your support, Obama will likely pave the way for you to be a blushing groom.
And the part about not "realizing we're being patronized" is nothing more than a lie and a cheap shot
your ignorance on my personal situation is only outranked by your ignorance on your own cluelessness on how easy it is for a Democrat to patronize you. If I was a Democratic politician having a fool like you in my hip pocket that I could pat on the head when I need a vote would be heaven. you're being played like a violin, wake up.
No wonder you could never be a Democrat. You think in purely black and white terms, just like the most ignorant Republican.
Why do you want to belong to a party that hates you and wishes you were dead?
To continue your analogy, would Lincoln have been elected in 1860 if he had run as an abolitionist?
Great point, Lincoln said he did not support freeing the slaves at one time. Was he lying in order to get elected? Who cares if he was?
that analogy is not the same thing, we went to war over that, it was far more of a risk at that time than saying you favor gay marriage now.
It's precisely the same thing. If Obama had said he was in favor of gay marriage, John McCain would be President now. And you would be even farther from your goal. Come back from the Bizarro planet, reality here has nothing to do with anything you have posted on the subject.
African Americans did not achieve equal rights in one fell swoop. They struggled for years before America did the right thing. My understanding of Obama is that he is a pragmatist and is going to try and support legislation that he thinks has a chance of actually becoming law. He has come out in support of civil unions. I think there is enough political will in this country to pass civil unions NOW. When we start talking about gay marriage the issue becomes more contentious and polarizing - even though they are functionally the same thing.
I'm of the belief that Obama is actually in favor of same-sex marriage, even though he has specifically stated the opposite.
Obama is a fair-minded constitutional law professor. I think he truly understands what equality is, but he also believes in the new MMFA Prop 8 thread buzzword - pragmatic incrementalism.
We needed Obama to be elected. Just think what life would be like right now if McCain/Palin were in office. We'd be screwed. Just because Obama doesn't support same-sex marriage NOW, doesn't mean that he won't 'publicly' change his mind at a later date...
so it doesn't bother you when politicians lie to your face then as long as you suspect they might agree with what you think they're lying about anyway?
I didn't say it doesn't bother me. Please don't put words in my mouth. I just meant that I understand why he would do such a thing (as Brabantio has pointed out before, it's politically risky at this time).
We would all like politicians to tell us the truth. However, reality is that we don't always hear the truth from them. We have to size them up and vote for whoever is the best. We are used to our politicians lying to us. It's not right, but it is what it is.
Besides, I don't give a damn if Obama supports same-sex marriage. Obviously I didn't vote for him based on this issue. This is an issue for the Courts to decide; Obama's opinion on same-sex marriage matters little to me. If Obama supports it, great. What will he do to make it a reality? Probably nothing, as it would take both houses of congress for such a thing to become law (without the Courts' interventions). I don't see that happening for quite some time, if at all, even if both houses were made up of only Democrats. Obama knows this as well.
(Just as an aside, I was more of a Kucinich supporter; Kucinich does support same-sex marriage, but I'm realistic about Kucinich. He's a bit too liberal for the presidency in most other areas.)
it has nothing to do with voting for or against, I certainly don't do that based on one issue. It's about holding them to the same standard as I would any politician, regardless of who it is. I want consistency and honesty, that I can deal with, what I don't encourage, or accept, is political games or maneuverings for any reason. whether I personally like it or not. It's much more than that, and believe me, if a politician lies about one thing, or plays one issue for political expediency, they will not hesitate to do it again - and the next time could be on an issue you don't agree with.
So would you vote for Alan Keyes over Obama? There's very little doubt that Keyes is consistent and honest in his expression of his beliefs. He doesn't seem to care what people think about them.
i said i don't vote based on one issue, I didn't say I will vote for anyone just because they happen to be honest in their opinions or expressions.
But Keyes matches up to your standards, and Obama might lie about any issue later on down the road. Why would you vote for Obama?
maybe i would, if they ever run against one another I will let you know.
They did run against each other, for the U.S. Senate.
I hope he's actually in favor of it. The Warren invitation bothered me, but that might have been just a really dumb idea and not indicative of anything else.
a perfect time to reprint the absolute best damn post of the day on this topic, bar none. thank you Bruce.
Posted by bruce1ace in reply to Col. Harlan Sanders
REPLY »
Indeed. Democratic politicians public rejection of gay marriage is "disappointing", while Republican rejection of gay marriage is a homophobic, visceral reaction of wingnuttery.
Posted Thursday February 26, 2009 12:01:02 PM EST
You're forgetting a key difference, JamesB:
Republicans make it a front-and-center issue. "Gotta make sure them f*gs can't get married!" Republicans are in full-assault mode when it comes to gay marriage.
Democrats just muss your hair and tell you that Civil Unions are good enough.
Both suck, but I'd rather have my hair mussed than end up tied to a fence in rural Wyoming.
But Obama has a track record for supporting gay rights otherwise. That's a pretty obvious difference from most Republicans. So if Obama scored an 89 out of 100 on the Human Rights Campaign's scale, and some random conservative scored a 3, then yes. one is disappointing while the other is homophobic.
attention Bruce, your point was just made infinitely stronger.
How so?
figure it out.
So you don't actually have anything to say, you're just arguing for argument's sake. Got it.
then we shall cease our exchanges from now on, i am more than fine with that. consider it done.
Taking you ball and going home. You are getting more and more like Tommy all the time.
JamesB, in all his glory, reminds me of that hatefull lil' bastard Eric Cartman from South Park.
He doesn't get what he wants, or the agreement he wants, so we hear,
"Screw you guys, I'm going home..."
Exactly right!
SoBarbantio wins by default. You would have saved a whole lot of response to your ignorance if you had just quit hours ago.
"So if Obama scored an 89 out of 100 on the Human Rights Campaign's scale..."
That a "B" grade...which is passing
I think you just answered my question above (you are quicker at forming and typing your responses than I am). It makes sense to me that you and your partner view civil unions akin to 'seperate but equal.' In fact, that is the best answer I have ever gotten from someone about why it matters what it's called.
Than you for the kind words. I've been arguing this topic for quite some time. It's hard to live in the gay paradise that is San Francisco and see that voters in the rest of the state have decided to vote against your interests based on bigotry. It's frustrating.
It kinda feels to me as though I have to ask the knuckle-draggers in the California interior, and the Christofascists from the Mormon church for permission to have my partner's hand in matrimony - and that they can legally tell me 'No.' Straight folks don't have to do that.
Your welcome :) I can't imagine how hard it is. That is one of the frustrating things about talking with most people where I live (Kansas). One, many of them have never met someone who is gay. Two, a majority of people I talk with just don't seem to care about the human toll. It's almost like I'm having a purely intellectual arguement rather than talking about an issue that directly affects the lives and civil rights of many people!
I was born and raised in Kansas. I know it's got to be hard to live there nowadays. That's one of the reasons I made my escape to SF.
Ironically, I have become mired in Kansas because I met and married my wife here and all of her family lives here. It's hard to move away from family although I can't tell you how many times I have thought about moving to somewhere a little more open minded. In Kansas' defense, there are still some Kansans who are not right wing zealots. I loved living in Lawrence, it can be pretty progressive at times.
Of course, my guess is that the Troglodytes would then come out against Civil Unions, too. They just mask their bigotry as a concern for the "institution of Marriage". It's nonsense. - Nerzog
I think you've hit the nail on the head. The trogs work in steps. First, they get gay marriage banned, under the guise of allowing civil unions. Once gay marriage is banned completely, they begin unwinding civil unions.
It's nice to know that the right-wing has such a concern for the respect and protection of marriage, especially since they've proven time and time again that they cannot respect and protect it themselves (see over 50% divorce rate, infidelity on a grand scale, etc.).
It's also interesting to note that Jesus, whom they claim to emulate, never mentioned homosexuality, but specifically condemned divorce.
Am I reading correctly that you would not support pragmatic incrementalism then? I mean, I can't help but think that if the gay and lesbian community shifted it's focus towards civil unions that it would pass and then they could shift back to gay marriage.
I mean, I am not part of the gay community so it's hard for me to understand. Would you rather wait longer for it to be called marriage because calling it civil unions is a slap in the face?
On the flip side, I am hopeful that if the supreme court would hear the case that banning gay marriage would be considered unconstitutional and so perhaps the gay and lesbian community pragmatically might not have to wait all that long for equal rights.
At this time, I do NOT support pragmatic incrementalism (I like the way you phrased that!). I don't support it because it gives the impression that, indeed, Civil Unions are acceptable (when, to me, they are not). It's saying, "OK, we'll give in and allow you to treat us in an unequal manner, just so we can get PART of what we want". I'm pulling for full and equal rights. Civil Unions do not offer that.
Your final paragraph describes exactly how I would like to see it happen. You cannot allow rights to be voted upon by the populace. Such rights would need to come from the Courts. Last year, the California Supreme Court invalidated California's ban on same-sex marriage. Last I heard, over 18,000 same-sex couples were wed, from the beginning of June 2008 to November 4, 2008. Society hasn't collapsed because of it.
So, to get from the first floor to the fourth floor, you're content to keep jumping for it instead of building a staircase?
I don't accept your analogy, but if forced to answer, I would say, yes.
Same-sex marriage is not an issue for politicians. It's for the Courts.
Same-sex marriage won't become legal in my lifetime if it's passage is left up to the general populace. The Courts need to decide the issue.
Do you think that any sort of amendment to the Constitution would make it past voters, or the congress? Not right now. Maybe not even in 20 years.
I don't want to speak for commonsenseliberal, but sometimes you DO have to jump instead of build. I'm not convinced that on this issue jumping is better than building, but then I am not a minority being denied my civil rights.
I do believe that if the gay and lesbian community would rather push for gay marriage instead of civil unions then the rest of us liberals in the majority should get behind them and support it. We are not in the minority, we don't know what it is like to be denied our civil rights, and I don't think we (the majority) should be dictating the direction of this debate. We need to get on board and support the gay and lesbian community.
Also, politics are a means to an end and while I think we could get civil unions passed, if that is not fair and equal to the gay community then perhaps we need to look at changing the political reality. Politicians have a hard time ignoring the masses when they get together and demand change.
This is a good point. Thecivil rights movement went in waves. Suffrage, mixed schools and the fight continues for all of the other things like equal pay, equal acess etc... Rome was not built over night, but I can understand the gay community wanting it to be built. It seems to me that they are reaching for the top amd excepting each milestone as they continue to push for the next. This is becoming the Civil rights issue of our era and just as the blacks could not move forward with out great support from whites, The gay rights movement will be stuck until there is a ground swell in the hetero community.
And what's more, the civil rights movement is theoretically easier to argue for because people are indisputably (key word) born black. It's not a behavioral issue. Of course, I'm sure that people are born gay, but there are many who don't think so, and there are those who oppose it because of what it says in the Bible, etc. So it may actually be harder simply because the opposition has more to work with than "he looks different than us!", and there's more of a religious aspect involved.
I'm convinced that people are born gay as well. However, in my opinion, it shouldn't matter... even if it IS a choice, I consider two consenting adults having sex pretty low in the hierarchy of things we should be worried about.
For some reason, religious people have convinced themselves that God gets more pi$$ed off about sex than anything else. Why would the creator of the universe be such a prude?
I agree theoretically it shouldn't matter, but it makes a huge difference politically. I could argue against gay rights just as easily as for them if I wanted to and if it was considered to be a choice.
That's true enough. That's why the Troglodytes argue so vociferously that it MUST be a choice. If it's ever proven to be an inborn trait, their whole "God hates homosexuals" argument goes out the window.
And that, as we know, is all they've got. Logic is not on their side.
Exactly. I can't say strongly enough just how important it is to never let up on the message that homosexuality is not a choice. Any credibility that an anti-homosexual argument has rests on the argument that it's chosen behavior.
In the Alice B Toklas letter, Obama never states his opposition to prop 8, plus he never even brings up the fact that he opposes same sex marriage.
The fact is that Obama opposes same sex marriage but needed to appear to oppose Prop 8 in order to hold the far left base.
It doesn't matter anyway.
Whether Obama supports gay marriage is neither here nor there.
Gay marriage will be legal in California, probably before year's end. It doesn't matter what the president thinks. Republicans wanted this to be a state issue so that they can push for banning it in as many states as possible. Fine. Do it. Try to ban gay marriage in California. It will go (again) in front of the California Supreme Court (mid-March?) for briefing. The same Court struck down the previous ban. Prop. 8 will be struck down again.
So again, it doesn't matter what Obama thinks about gay marriage. When it becomes a national issue (which I don't see it being a national issue for several years), then the president's views could be important. But currently it is a state issue - and will remain as such - until the U.S. Supreme Court allows briefing on the matter.
By the way...I agree with you. And it will be hard for those who comment on this site to believe that I am do not oppose same-sex marriage. What people want to do in their private life is not my business. I've seen too many happy gay couples to pass judgement.
(A little proofreading on my part would be nice) "...I do not oppose same-sex marriage..."
I agree they should be entitled to be just as miserable as the breeders. Equal opportunity missery.
Well... if you're going to have gay marriage, you're going to have gay divorce! (And I don't expect it will be at any smaller rate either!)
Friends of mine who have been a couple since longer than I have known them are divorcing. They were married last July. I don't know the reason. They still love each other, but they are parting ways. One is moving out of state. Who knows, it may have to do with the fact that they cannot stay together, or that one doesn't want to move and the other has to (his mother is terminally ill). It's probably more of a financial issue than anything. It may have everything to do with the fact that gay marriage isn't legal where my friend is moving. I don't know, they don't talk specifics, and I'm not rude enough to inquire.
They share their bank accounts, both have their name on the condo, cars, insurance, etc. That's going to be a mess to sort out. At least it will be amicable.
Questions, maybe dumb, I don't know. Did the California Supreme Court strike down the previous ban on gay marriage on the ground that it violated California's State Constitution? (I admit. I'm not up to date on this issue . ..)
If the California Court says the law violates California's constitution, would the federal courts then be allowed to step in and overrule that decision, a decision dealing strictly with the provisions of a State constitution? I ask this because I know in PA the courts have struck down laws that violate the State constitution, but not the federal constitution. I'm unsure whether a federal court can step in and say "no, you're interpreting your State Constitution wrong." Can they?
I don't think so. That why this needs to be a SUPREME COURT issue. And there's only one AMERICAN answer and that's EQUAL RIGHTS, FREEDOM and LIBERTY for ALL. Those four embarrassments that sit on the right side of the bench will never see it that way, but they all "use "we the people" toilet paper, thinking it's somehow patriotic.
If you are asking honestly, then the questions aren't dumb.
The California Supreme Court struck down the previous ban on gay marriage last year, allowing for full-fledged gay marriage (not watered-down Civil Unions) beginning in early-mid-June 2008. The California Supreme Court found that a ban on gay marriage was indeed a violation of the State's Constitution.
I believe (but cannot say for sure) the answer is 'no' to your question, that Federal Courts could NOT step in and overrule that decision (as it's not a Federal question in front of the Court).
Hopefully Friedbergboy and/or LapsedLawyer will chime in and give us the correct answer.
My question was serious, and I appreciate your reply. I also believe that you're correct. If the California Supreme Court deems marriage to be a fundamental civil right, into which the gov't should not interfere, then these ridiculous laws will continue to be stricken at the state level. And so long as the Court continues to base its decisions on state law, then it looks like advocates of these laws will have no recourse to the fed courts . ..
I think it is worth pointing out that Dennis Miller SUPPORTS same-sex marriage and has unequivocally stated so many times on his radio show.
But this item is not about same-sex marriage; it's about those who support Obama but give him a pass on the marriage issue.
Actually with Miller it's about being the best whore for the Republicans that he can be. But you do have a point.
Have you ever heard Dennis' radio show?
OK... you got me. No. I haven't. I've seen his comedy (not relevant) and I've seen him on Fox, etc... So I'm callin' what I see, but you may very well have seen more than I have.
OTH... if he's really that different on his show, then he's being 2-faced when he appears on Fox. Either way, I don't think I'm entirely off-base. (Just enough to warrant a throw from the pitcher, I'll wager.)
Let me set this "fact-finding" Media Matters organization straight. You pick and choose which quotes you post just like the media that you detest does.
Obama has said that he believes marraige should be between a man and a woman, but that he also doesn't believe in a ban against it. So, maybe he did support Prop. 8, but lets not leave out that he doesn't believe in gay marriage.
One of Obama’s pragmatic stands troubling to progressives is on gay marriage. In a Senate debate, Obama opposed the right-wing Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriage nationally and said: “I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states.” However, Obama also declared, “Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.” At the same time, Obama has strongly supported civil unions, arguing that it is a way to protect equal rights without taking the politically risky approach of gay marriage. Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.114-115 Oct 30, 2007
"So maybe he did oppose Prop 8" I meant to say.
Prop 8 won't lead to Civil Unions. And Civil Unions won't end the debate unless they are worded in such a way that all past, present and future laws regarding marriage (and divorce!) will apply equally to CU's. And the 'Pub's will never accept that. They'd make it "sperate but equal" and then keep threating them as if they were apples and airplanes.
But there's no reasonable argument, anywhere, to support not letting gays marry. There's none. Every single argument I've ever heard (and I debate this a LOT) is full of bugus logic, false equivalencies, religious bigotry and utter nonsense. It's an utterly absurd position to hold.
so why do you accept it from Obama then?
Who said I do? His rhetoric on Gay marrige in one of the very few things that I disagree with him on. OTH - he'd never get elected if he didn't take a moderate (if that's even the right word) position on it. All in all I think he was the best candidate, by far, in either field. And THAT'S why I accept him. That - and one more fascist on the SCOTUS (to join Roberts, Scalia, Alito and THomas) and we won't make any progress on the issue (or any other) for another half-century. So Obama's personal opinion is irrelevant, even if the issue WAS already at the federal level. This is going to be settled in the SCOTUS either way, and Obama WILL appoint the kind of judges that will make the CORRECT decision on this. (McCain and any other 'Pub will NOT.)
We did not go to war over abolition. We went to war over secession. The Civil War started in 1861 and Lincoln didn't announce the Emancipation Proclamation until 1862, the year after the war started.
stand corrected. but I don't accept the analogy that opposing slavery at that time is the political equivalent to gay marriage today. Gay marriage is hardly of the same magnitude.
What a combo. O'Reilly and Miller. Two of the biggest brains in the business. Dennis is a tad less funny than Bill. Dennis Miller was, in fact, NEVER funny. Bill is ALWAYS good for a laugh. Dennis has been after the homeless wine-o vote by his appearance. I hear that O'Reilly's therapist is in therapy...
Mmfa gets another story incorrect. No where in any of the quotes promoted by mmfa does Obama say he would have voted against prop 8. He is a Christian and every good Christian knows that homosexuality is a sin against God and morality. The fact is, that Obama consistantly opposes gay marraige in any context. But, in liberal-lala-land that equates to supporting gay marraige.
Philib
"Usually immorality is considered illegal (murder, rape, stealing, lieing). Too bad liberals can't grasp that concept."
That's just plain not true. Lying is only illegal if it's done regarding a legal matter or in the course of an investigation, and even then it relies on other factors. Adultery is legal, along with swearing, and sex before marriage. There is very little connection between morality and law, it's based on societal interests.
Philib
"Mmfa gets another story incorrect. No where in any of the quotes promoted by mmfa does Obama say he would have voted against prop 8. He is a Christian and every good Christian knows that homosexuality is a sin against God and morality. The fact is, that Obama consistantly opposes gay marraige in any context. But, in liberal-lala-land that equates to supporting gay marraige."
Wrong on every count.
First off, Obama comment about Constitutions clearly implies that he is against Proposition 8. Second, there are many Christians who tolerate homosexuality. Third, Obama supports gay rights, including gays in the military and civil unions. Fourth, it's possible to oppose gay marriage and oppose Proposition 8 at the same time, since the proposition dealt with superceding a state Constitution. You can have a view and understand that it does not trump higher law.
Exactly right Brabantio. Well said.
"Second, there are many Christians who tolerate homosexuality."
You mean there are many who call themselves Christian who tolerate homosexuality. It clearly states in the Christian Bible how God feels about homosexuality. Whether you 'choose' to believe God or other liberals is your own choice. Just like homosexuals have the 'choice' to be or not to be homosexual.
Implications are not stated fact. Stated fact is Obama opposes gay marriage rights. You got something that says he supports gay marriage? When you do (never) please get back with us. Until then ... you are again, wrong.
Jared
"We are not in the minority, we don't know what it is like to be denied our civil rights, and I don't think we (the majority) should be dictating the direction of this debate."
Something else to consider here is how well Republicans do controlling the national debate and news cycles. If there's a single thing they can do, it's get their message out there. Banding together to push for something that doesn't have popular support would be blood in the water, because Democrats get painted as radicals enough as it is, and that would make it much worse. As CSL said, a Constitutional amendment would be impossible. Anything less would just be a ping-pong ball, getting overturned by the next Republican in power.
It's nice to have control of the Executive and Legislative branches, but there are still political consequences to be considered.
Brabantio
I understand what you are saying and the political costs could be high, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't act.
Perhaps the question we should be asking is "Why doesn't gay marriage have popular support?" We need to be able to answer this question intelligently and with conviction. If the reason a majority of Americans do not support gay marriage is due to bigotry or hatred or religious fervor, then I think we should stand up and say that the majority is wrong and we should demand civil rights for gays and lesbians.
Also, in my earlier post I was thinking more along the lines of grassroots public support rather than political strategy. It is clear to me that oftentimes politicians will not do the "right" thing until the public demands it. I'm not asking Obama to champion gay rights (although I wish he would/could). I am saying that the liberal public (us) should be doing more to force the issue.
I see your point and I agree to a certain extent. There are grassroots organizations out there who are campaigning for marriage equality. However, there are too many people (especially in the interior of the country, like where you are) who put too much emphasis on marriage as a religious institution. Marriage is, in fact, a legal issue - it's a contract between two people. It can be both, but it is not and cannot be solely a religious issue.
On that same point, I'd like to add that most same-sex couples who desire to be married don't want any sort of religious institution involved. This is about government acknowledgement, not about religious acceptance. No churches will be harmed as a result of same-sex marriage (contrary to the squaks coming from those who claim that churches could be sued for not performing same-sex marriages).
I think one of the strongest arguments for same-sex marriage has to do with rights of survivorship. In the book I mentioned yesterday, Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, Boswell explains that rights of survivorship were one of the major reasons why two men were able to marry. It was a legal, contractual relationship. They wanted to be sure that the other was secure in the even of the other's demise. That's mostly what we want as well.
And I know, before you say "it's easy to do that without marriage, just write up a will" - wills are still able to be reversed, especially in the case of a blood relative who believes they are entitled to money, property, etc. instead of the partner of the recently deceased, who had been with him for 40+ years.
There are lots of other 'benefits' involved with being married that heterosexuals enjoy and homosexuals cannot. That in itself constitutes discrimination - and it cannot be allowed to stand.
I should also not fail to mention that the support from the heterosexual community is more than welcome, more than appreciated and more than helpful to our cause. So, for those of you who do support our strive for equality, I will speak for all us gay folks and extend my sincerest gratitude for your support. It is people like you who indeed allow others to see that we are just normal tax-paying American citizens looking for a little bit of the same happiness that others have/want.
That Boswell must be some writer! :) Two mentions in two days. I need to read that book.
I think you hit the nail on the head about not making gay marriage a solely religious issue. It is most definately a legal issue. Thanks for all of your responses. I have enjoyed talking with you about this.
Jared
I get your meaning better now. As a matter of citizen organization, that would probably help pave the way to political viability. At the very least it would make life more difficult for gay rights opponents, which is always a worthwhile cause.
President Obama very clearly stated that he believe marriage should be between and man and a woman. He did go on to explain that in regards to Prop 8 that is should be left up to the states. In addition he was asked about this, an item on the state ballot, during his campaign for President.
Obama called Prop 8 "harmful and divisive". That's not support.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Role_of_Prop_8_in_presidential_race
Philib
"You mean there are many who call themselves Christian who tolerate homosexuality. It clearly states in the Christian Bible how God feels about homosexuality. Whether you 'choose' to believe God or other liberals is your own choice. Just like homosexuals have the 'choice' to be or not to be homosexual."
The Christian Bible also says that you shouldn't eat shellfish or wear clothing of mixed fibers. You don't get to define Christianity based on your own bigotry.
"Implications are not stated fact. Stated fact is Obama opposes gay marriage rights. You got something that says he supports gay marriage? When you do (never) please get back with us. Until then ... you are again, wrong."
I didn't say he supported gay marriage. I said he opposed Proposition 8. If you can explain how saying something isn't what America is all about is supporting it, I'm all ears.