Thank you, Mr. President

[Ebb]

Obama officially endorses same-sex marriage

[Shjade]

President Obama says his position on same-sex marriage has evolved.

...why am I experiencing this perverse compulsion to come up with a political Pokemon joke.

[Chris Brady]

My response to that is... So what?

The Federal Government, as I understand it, has no influence over the States over minor topics like that.  It's likely just another political ploy to get votes on his side.

[HairyHeretic]

Or it might be a response to that thing in North Carolina.

[Oniya]

It's a controversial enough position that it could easily lose him votes in some sectors.  The 'safest' position for any politician is going to be the middle of the road, unless there's a clear (and voting!) majority on one side or the other. 

[rick957]

My response to that is... So what?

He's the single most important public figure on the face of the entire planet, and he just openly endorsed gay marriage. 

With all due respect, whether one is for or against his position, it's naive to imagine that his position doesn't matter.  It doesn't have to matter to you personally, if that's your position, but it does matter a lot to me and to thousands if not millions of other people ... so that makes it matter. 

His position will have a huge effect of some kind on the way people think about the issue, and that effect will have a direct impact on eventual legislation, though the nature of that effect remains to be seen. 

This will galvanize people on both sides of the issue, because of who he is and what his office represents.

This is a historic development of enormous significance, and one doesn't need to like the President or his position to realize that and acknowledge it.  Even those opposed to gay marriage would be making a huge mistake by overlooking the importance of this development.

[Shjade]

He's the single most important public figure on the face of the entire planet

CEO of Microsoft?

[Chris Brady]

He's the single most important public figure on the face of the entire planet...

No, he's not.  He's not even a blip outside of the U.S. to most non-Western countries, and those that do know him, view the States, and by extension the President, as a fool and a meddler in things he shouldn't.  The U.S. has had a seriously damaged international relationship with a lot of countries in the last decade.  A lot of them are European.  So this?  At best is a PR stunt to show himself more open minded than his political opponents, or trying to distance himself from the North Carolina debacle.

[Callie Del Noire]

Or it might be a response to that thing in North Carolina.

I'm thinking it's that. The last of the 'south' finally makes a stand on the issue.  It IS going to be an issue this time around. You'll be seeing and hearing this.

My response to that is... So what?

The Federal Government, as I understand it, has no influence over the States over minor topics like that.  It's likely just another political ploy to get votes on his side.

Federal vs State. Definitely going to draw a line. I find myself wondering how many 'Goldwater' conservatives will come down on this issue as a state issue. 

Berry is infamous for a lot of things but he did think social issues were the purview of the federal government. Of course he also said "I don't care if a soldier is straight or not, only that he SHOOTS straight.". In 1960 America that was radical.

No, he's not.  He's not even a blip outside of the U.S. to most non-Western countries, and those that do know him, view the States, and by extension the President, as a fool and a meddler in things he shouldn't.  The U.S. has had a seriously damaged international relationship with a lot of countries in the last decade.  A lot of them are European.  So this?  At best is a PR stunt to show himself more open minded than his political opponents, or trying to distance himself from the North Carolina debacle.

Why should he filch over what the first GOP dominated statehouse in 140 years in NC did? He knows where his constituents are in the state and most of them didnt vote for the change or will vote for Romney.

[AndyZ]

It won't let me read the last page because I'm not a subscriber.  Is Obama trying to set up a federal plan to endorse same-sex marriages, or is he just saying that it's a states' rights issue?

[Chris Brady]

Why should he filch over what the first GOP dominated statehouse in 140 years in NC did? He knows where his constituents are in the state and most of them didnt vote for the change or will vote for Romney.

Probably because his political speech writers and organizers said he should.  Also, this keeps him and by extension his political party in the public mind.

Don't get me wrong, it's a nice attitude to have, but I am left questioning how much of it is real or political spinning.

[HairyHeretic]

No, he's not.  He's not even a blip outside of the U.S. to most non-Western countries, and those that do know him, view the States, and by extension the President, as a fool and a meddler in things he shouldn't.  The U.S. has had a seriously damaged international relationship with a lot of countries in the last decade.  A lot of them are European. 

Actually that was the view of Bush.

Obama tends to be seen an awful lot better. Not that that would really be hard.

[rick957]

CEO of Microsoft?

Shjade, you're such a clever smartass that I can't tell if you expected a serious response to this or not, but I'll give you one anyway, if only to play along, and also out of the high regard I have for your intellect.  I'll feel silly afterwards if you were just pulling my leg, though.  :)

If you're suggesting that there may be businesspeople or people with enormous wealth and influence whose public clout exceeds that of the President's, I would say that I personally disagree, although I might be convinced if you can make a strong enough case.

Off the top of my head, I would say that the historic and public importance attached to the office of the President can be seen in the fact that so many people around the world know who many U.S. Presidents were and what they did, whereas so few people know anything about what any CEO does or did, and same goes for owners of businesses.  Who are the most famous and influential businesspeople or rich people, either now or historically?  Can you name more of them than you can name Presidents?  Personally I can't.  (I would give you my lists of each, off the top of my head, but they're both embarrassingly short, and I'd rather not demonstrate how dumb I can be.  Nevertheless, the first list is still puny compared to the second.)  Actually I don't even know who the current Microsoft CEO is, because it isn't Bill Gates anymore, right?  Nathan Myrvold or something?  I dunno.

No, he's not.  He's not even a blip outside of the U.S. to most non-Western countries, and

Holy crap, you're the second person now trying to argue against the significance of the President in world affairs and/or public opinion.  I feel like I'm in France or something.  :)

Based on my limited education, my understanding is that no single figure in the world has the public clout or impact on public opinion that the U.S. President has, not even close.  The second figure on the list would be the Pope, I think, and that would be a distant second.  Also, if you want to argue about importance to the largest number of human beings, then you have to consider the distribution of world population, in which case the rulers of China and India must be high up in your list; but their importance is diminished outside of their respective geographic locales.

I'm hardly an authority about all this, and I would be glad to defer to anyone with better education or knowledge about these topics.  You'll have to say some stuff to convince me that you know what you're talking about, though.

those that do know him, view the States, and by extension the President, as a fool and a meddler in things he shouldn't. 

The fact that so many people view the USA and the President in this way is proof of its and his significance.  Disliking or hating someone is totally different from feeling indifference towards them or not caring at all about them or not knowing who they are.

The U.S. has had a seriously damaged international relationship with a lot of countries in the last decade.  A lot of them are European.  So this?  At best is a PR stunt to show himself more open minded than his political opponents, or trying to distance himself from the North Carolina debacle.

This is a valid opinion, and I respect it, but I certainly do not share it, and in fact I consider it somewhat naive and largely indefensible.  That's not meant as a personal slight.  I just don't know how anyone can become well-educated without finding out how important the actions and opinions of US Presidents have always been and continue to be. 

Am I saying that every President's every utterance is earth-shaking?  Certainly not.  But I guarantee you that most if not all major newspapers around the world will announce Obama's latest position-change in their top, front-page headline, and that's because readers will want to know, whether they're happy about it or much the opposite.  (If I'm wrong here, it's only in the placement of the headline on those pages; and I would find even that surprising.)

But, I would be very interested in hearing counter-arguments.  I don't need a treatise or a list of articles to read, but if you can just tell me a little more about what you think and why you think that, maybe I will be persuaded to agree with you, or at the very least understand your position better and learn something from the process of dialog.  No obligation, of course, just an open invitation.

[Chris Brady]

Actually that was the view of Bush.

Obama tends to be seen an awful lot better. Not that that would really be hard.

That's the thing, your assuming that the outside world thinks him different enough or at least the States in general have done something politically challenging that shakes up the status quo.

From the various news sites I read?  He hasn't.  Which to other countries make him seem like another in a line of meddlers.  Not to mention that there is a lot of unrest within their own bords, so noticing any other country is really hard at the moment.

[Chris Brady]

Significant?  He barely gets any coverage outside of North America, Rick.  That's how significant Obama is.  And when he does it's usually over some politically insignificant 'goodwill' trip to like China or someplace.

This entire NC debacle?  Not even going to show up in Canada's papers, and we're considered the U.S's lapdogs and toadies on the International scene.

[Torch]

Significant?  He barely gets any coverage outside of North America, Rick.  That's how significant Obama is.  And when he does it's usually over some politically insignificant 'goodwill' trip to like China or someplace.

Really?

Tell that to De Welt and to Le Figaro, both of whom have the Obama same-sex marriage story on their front pages.

They must not have received the memo that Obama is supposed to be insignificant.

ETA: Oh look, Le Monde has it on their front page, too.

[rick957]

Significant?  He barely gets any coverage outside of North America, Rick.  That's how significant Obama is.  And when he does it's usually over some politically insignificant 'goodwill' trip to like China or someplace.

Well, this does give me a couple additional details about your perspective, so that's helpful.  If this is all you want to say to elaborate or support your positions, that's fine, but in that case, I hope someone else reading along who agrees with your positions will take the trouble to elaborate further. 

[Chris Brady]

Really?

Tell that to De Welt and to Le Figaro, both of whom have the Obama same-sex marriage story on their front pages.

They must not have received the memo that Obama is supposed to be insignificant.

ETA: Oh look, Le Monde has it on their front page, too.

So three papers in all the world.  That does make him important after all...

[Edit]

For the record, I speak and read French, and apparently the Le Monde article is actually 'wondering' how trustworthy his statement is, by claiming that over the weekend, Obama is effectively repeating what the VP said.  Perhaps it's a show of solidarity within the party, rather than Obama means it.  Now, this is the paper's claim.  It's also claiming that his 'position' on the matter is fuzzy and unclear.

Which to me makes me wonder just how objective this paper is.

[Torch]

So three papers in all the world.  That does make him important after all...

Three leading European newspapers.

I'd be glad to find a dozen more, if you like.

Your claim that Obama receives barely any news coverage outside North America is merely your opinion, not a statement of fact.

[Chris Brady]

I read the French one, and they're not believing it, as I state up above.

And I hesitate to put the fact that the webpage has it two 'levels' down under it's own title as actually being 'front page'.  It's more than likely how they lay out the website.  Personally, I'd like to see where the hard copy puts it.  Is it still front page?  Or is it under the 'International' section that most papers have within the first three 'layers' of the newspaper.

If they're anything like the Le Monde's article, though.  It's more likely they're using this example as how 'wishy washy' Obama is.  Now, I am not saying that the other two papers are doing this.  But the French one is.

[rick957]

And I hesitate to put the fact that the webpage has it two 'levels' down under it's own title as actually being 'front page'.  It's more than likely how they lay out the website.  Personally, I'd like to see where the hard copy puts it.  Is it still front page?  Or is it under the 'International' section that most papers have within the first three 'layers' of the newspaper.

To help show good faith, I'll grant you that I may have overstated the importance of Obama's announcement around the world, by stressing that it would make the top front-page headline everywhere.  In Torch's links, for example, I've already been proven wrong about that detail, at least in a sense (web headlines vs. print).  I'll take my lumps for that. 

I stand by the rest of what I said, though, for the time being at least.

[Torch]

I read the French one, and they're not believing it, as I state up above.

And I hesitate to put the fact that the webpage has it two 'levels' down under it's own title as actually being 'front page'.  It's more than likely how they lay out the website.  Personally, I'd like to see where the hard copy puts it.  Is it still front page?  Or is it under the 'International' section that most papers have within the first three 'layers' of the newspaper.

If they're anything like the Le Monde's article, though.  It's more likely they're using this example as how 'wishy washy' Obama is.  Now, I am not saying that the other two papers are doing this.  But the French one is.

You questioned whether or not Obama receives international news coverage, not the content of that coverage. The stories are there, on the front page. If you need more examples, I can provide them. Even Al Jazeera has it as the lead story.

Again, your opinion is your opinion, not fact.

[Silk]

Well as someone who lives in the UK, and makes an effort to keep in touch with what is going up with the news... Obama really doesn't get a lot of coverage, unless it affects the UK in some fashion, like a visit or alike. So no, he doesn't get a great deal of coverage from americas lacky country. So I doubt outside the UK is much better.

[Chris Brady]

As you like Torch as you like.

Again, I wonder if all these Obama articles in other papers are applauding his choice, or using it as an example as to why the U.S. is not to be trusted.  Le Monde is disgustingly biased against him.

[Shjade]

Again, your opinion is your opinion, not fact.

That seems to come up a lot here. ... Well, on every messageboard, really.

Sorry, Rick, I was just joking with you. ;p

[Torch]

Well as someone who lives in the UK, and makes an effort to keep in touch with what is going up with the news... Obama really doesn't get a lot of coverage, unless it affects the UK in some fashion, like a visit or alike. So no, he doesn't get a great deal of coverage from americas lacky country. So I doubt outside the UK is much better.

The Times and The Daily Telegraph both have it on the front page.

Under the death of Vidal Sassoon, of course.  ::)

[rick957]

@ Shjade

:P :P :P

;)

[Silk]

Not exactly groundbreakingly significant then is it :P Madeline mccain has been on the front pages repeatedly over the years since she went missing, just to point out how insignificant stuff can make the front page in the small blurb boxes. More often than not the newspapers are clutching at straws for something to write about.

[Torch]

Not exactly groundbreakingly significant then is it :P Madeline mccain has been on the front pages repeatedly over the years since she went missing, just to point out how insignificant stuff can make the front page in the small blurb boxes.

The point is the news coverage is there, like it or not, whether you believe it is significant or not.

To declare that it doesn't exist is factually incorrect.

[Callie Del Noire]

That's the thing, your assuming that the outside world thinks him different enough or at least the States in general have done something politically challenging that shakes up the status quo.

From the various news sites I read?  He hasn't.  Which to other countries make him seem like another in a line of meddlers.  Not to mention that there is a lot of unrest within their own bords, so noticing any other country is really hard at the moment.

Ah Chris. Hairy isn't in the US.. he doesn't listen to our pundits..he listens to his. And being overseas when the President was running.. he had a more POSTIVE reception then..and now.

And GW Bush has mangled our clout with Europe for a LONG time to go. He ran over their issues with 9/11 and the aftermath and instead of doing a team building event like his father did he rudely and blunt put it down as 'my way of the highway'.

I dare say that we've NEVER been as low in our allies general popularity as we are today.

[Silverfyre]

The whole "I didn't see it so thus it doesn't exist" method of thinking is not based on factual statements nor does it serve as a good basis for deductive reasoning.  Just because you, personally, are not seeing the coverage does not mean it does not exist nor does it mean that President Obama is not a figure that other global and domestic news agencies outside of the U.S. cover regularly.

Also, consider the internet for a moment.  It's a global medium.  His statements are getting coverage on the 'Web and international news networks, social networking sites and a plethora of other formats.  It doesn't need to just be on the front page of a news paper to be considered "news".  People all over cyber space talk about a variety of events happening all over the world.  I find it hard to believe that one might think otherwise.

[Rinzler]

As someone living outside the US, I'd say that in comparison to every other world leader (home ones excluded, obviously), Obama generally gets a lot more coverage. To my eyes, anyway.

[Gosco]

I recognize that it may be something to help boost his numbers before an election but sometimes doing something good for the wrong reason is still something good.

It's good to hear a President publicly endorse gay marriage.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Add to the discussion the fact that not stating his opinion could work against him and those his support would benefit.

[Chris Brady]

Welp, the Daily Telegraph pretty much says the same thing.  Obama's statement is being seen as 'damage control' by the Democrats.  Which pretty much cements what I was saying, most countries, even once considered allies think Obama is weak.

I stand corrected on his popularity.  Obviously they seem to love themselves a whipping boy.

[Silverfyre]

Welp, the Daily Telegraph pretty much says the same thing.  Obama's statement is being seen as 'damage control' by the Democrats.  Which pretty much cements what I was saying, most countries, even once considered allies think Obama is weak.

I stand corrected on his popularity.  Obviously they seem to love themselves a whipping boy.

The media's opinion of someone does not equal the opinions of a whole nation or otherwise. "Weak" is such a broad and subjective term as well? Weak in what regards?

[Oniya]

This just showed up on my Facebook page, and I thought it spoke to a lot of the points raised here.  The second paragraph, in particular, is what prompted me to quote it.

This happened. While we were in despair after the NC vote, this occurred. Sure, maybe it's an incredibly calculated move by a cynical gameplayer who's only motivation is to get elected. Just like every other major politician and -certainly- like anyone who'll ever be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. But that doesn't matter. In fact, that makes this even more wonderful.

Because what that means is, saying this, right now, is what is going to win votes. If Obama only says what he think we want to hear, then that means some of the best people in the country at judging the mood of the American people think that -this- is what we want to hear.

We should also not underestimate the power of Obama's position as the most powerful, the most listened to pundit in the country. His psotion [sic] as president gives him unparallelled ability to shape, as well as respond to, public opinion. That's why, even if the man has -done- terrible things, what he -says- does actually matter. Maybe not as much as what he's done, and believe me I'd rather a less bought president, but it -does- matter.

And so, this is cause for at least a -little- celebration.

[Chris Brady]

The media's opinion of someone does not equal the opinions of a whole nation or otherwise. "Weak" is such a broad and subjective term as well? Weak in what regards?

Indecisive, which I'm sure most everyone will agree that as a trait, it is undesirable in a leader.  So far, they (the international papers) seem content at portraying Obama as a man ruled by his party, especially given how he flip flopped over a statement he made in 2004 (yes, I know, this makes no sense to me either.)  See the issue so far, is that it seems Obama is content on following what his predecessors have set up.  He's more or less seen as Damage Control.  After the changes that the Bush Admin caused, for good or ill, Obama is just...  There.

This is the impression I'm getting from the news agencies.  Admittedly, how he's being portrayed isn't helping either, but so far he's not made any decision that hasn't been caused by someone else.  Or so the newsies seem intent on claiming.

[Beguile's Mistress]

There is really no difference in the way any president is treated by the media except for the positive or negative aspect of the editorial position of the outlet.

For eight years Bush was the golden boy at Fox now it's Romney.  They treat Mr. Obama badly.  The reverse could be said for outlets that support the left.

It never changes.  I let the media mumble, moan and groan, shout, crow and sing and then listen to the candidate as much as possible and make up my own mind. 

[Silverfyre]

There is really no difference in the way any president is treated by the media except for the positive or negative aspect of the editorial position of the outlet.

For eight years Bush was the golden boy at Fox now it's Romney.  They treat Mr. Obama badly.  The reverse could be said for outlets that support the left.

It never changes.  I let the media mumble, moan and groan, shout, crow and sing and then listen to the candidate as much as possible and make up my own mind.

Well said.

[gaggedLouise]

Indecisive, which I'm sure most everyone will agree that as a trait, it is undesirable in a leader.  So far, they (the international papers) seem content at portraying Obama as a man ruled by his party, especially given how he flip flopped over a statement he made in 2004 (yes, I know, this makes no sense to me either.)  See the issue so far, is that it seems Obama is content on following what his predecessors have set up.  He's more or less seen as Damage Control.  After the changes that the Bush Admin caused, for good or ill, Obama is just...  There.

Since Mr. Bush has now been brought into the discussion, I'd like to point out that a *lot* of what Bush was doing and saying during his second presidential term, and especially his last two years, was perceived as not very skilful damage control of a botched presidency, as jumping along from one piece of turf in the marsh to another one: as flip-flopping, evasive moves and kicking the can down the road. It was seen that way by so very many people, and by much of the media, both outside the U.S. (especially) and within it. The guy was not seen as firm in his purpose, or as well-informed or honest, anywhere outside of the U.S. in his last years at the White House - except in some neo-con circles. He was perceived as a casualty of his own years way before 2008.

And like it or not, to some degree the comparison with Bush, and the handling of the Bush legacy, are going to influence how Obama is perceived and judged for many years ahead (less with "LGBT questions" specifically than in many other fields though). That's not something I think is completely fair, but it's just...there, I would say: it's a fact.

[Gosco]

I think any information you take from a large media source has be taken with a grain of salt. Question things. Everything. Nothing should be fact because someone told you.

[Chris Brady]

I'm obviously not articulating what I'm trying to say very well.  What happens within the U.S.  How you people view him, via the news outlets, is not what I'm discussing.  It's the more international aspects.

Say what you will about Bush, he was decisive.  Even if the choices he made were wrong, he acted on them.  In fact, most of the damage control was due to him doing or saying something that the rest of his party was trying NOT to have happen.

But Obama?  He's being depicted as a PR man.  A guy who walks around shaking hands, smiling for the camera and then moving on to the next public relations event.  He's rarely seen as actually DOING something, or if he is, it's more of a stopgap or sticking a finger into a hole in a dam.

Bear in mind, I am NOT saying he IS ineffectual.  It's how the news outlets outside the U.S. seem to be portraying him.  As let's face it, although the President saying something is important, so are the news agencies.  In fact a lot of people put more stock into the news because reporters are seen as unbiased and can only speak truths (Which is a total and complete falsehood, see FOX News and CNN.)

[Trieste]

I think that the fact that there is a worldwide opinion of the POTUS speaks for the power of the position in itself. After all, can someone from an entirely different continent name the head of government in, say, Brazil? How about Ghana? Bulgaria?

How many people can name the Canadian Prime Minister off the top of their heads, let alone form an opinion about them?

I think that the POTUS is far from irrelevant. He is many things, and he is seen as many more things, but irrelevant is not one of them.

[gaggedLouise]

I'm obviously not articulating what I'm trying to say very well.  What happens within the U.S.  How you people view him, via the news outlets, is not what I'm discussing.  It's the more international aspects.

Well, if you're referring to the gay marriage issue specifically here, no, I don't see hundreds of millions of people outside the U.S. viewing Obama's endorsement as a statement that matters a great deal internationally. It's more seen as part of an effort to make the U.S. "catch up" with the wider world, ridding herself of attitudes and laws that have become outdated. It's perceived as domectic policy, yes - and many people recognize that legally speaking, it's not something the president will be able to decide directly because it's mostly state law. The statement was a bit overdue, yes, he could have made it a year or two ago. But we all know this issue is so loaded in the U.S. that any political figure with national ambitions or a national standing has to weigh how he/she is saying things against how it will be picked up by their voters, sponsors and adversaries.

It's seen (by non-Americans) as a "home talk issue", and about the U.S. being in a political and social learning process (sorry for having to put it that way - and No, it doesn't mean casting Obama as "the Teacher"!). It's the same with the health insurance law I think, which will likely be seen as a defining part of the current term: many people see it as the U.S. coming to terms with something many other nations grappled with decades ago. Yes, that view flies in the face of the tradition of U.S. exceptionalism of course, but it's part of how it's seen - especially in Europe and Canada, but not just in those places.

Bear in mind, I am NOT saying he IS ineffectual.  It's how the news outlets outside the U.S. seem to be portraying him.  As let's face it, although the President saying something is important, so are the news agencies.  In fact a lot of people put more stock into the news because reporters are seen as unbiased and can only speak truths (Which is a total and complete falsehood, see FOX News and CNN.)

Many news sources and writers, outside of the U.S. as much as within, have "placed bets" on him and how he is going to perform in the upcoming elections, in foreign policy etc, and they will skew what they say to play up to those bets and estimates. Or they may have axes to grind in general politics. That's going to play a major role in what gets written and reported, that's how the news machine works.

I personally stopped believing a long time ago that "it's got to be true because I read it in such and such a paper". Even with those news outlets I see as having good quality. One just has to dig a bit deeper, and to think for oneself. And yes, the media have become overall less scrupulous, more spinny,

[Gosco]

For me, when someone starts to argue out of complete emotion, the argument is pretty much over. Logic has a hard time breaking through an emotional wall. Funny enough emotion has an easy time breaking through a logical wall.

[Chris Brady]

Sadly most political discussions are started in the emotional, rather than the logical, which is why it's hard to actually debate politics.  I try to remain neutral, it's hard I admit, VERY hard, but I try.

[rick957]

Holy shit this moved off the national radar quick, at least according to the small portion of the media that I pay attention to.  Is this good news, meaning that nobody cares what Obama thinks, because the whole planet is already accepting of the notion of gay marriage?  I wish I could be convinced of that interpretation of events, but I'm too cynical to believe it.  Also I'm living right now on the border of the American South, and this is definitely not a place that is accepting of the notion of gay marriage.

Chris Brady, all I can say is, the way the story has developed seems to bear out your interpretation of events and to directly contradict mine.  I thought this was big news, but today it looks like I was wrong.  That actually bums me out, frankly.  Oh well.  *sullenly chomps his humble pie*

[Chris Brady]

Rick, I truly wish I were wrong.  Being right this case just plain sucks.

[rick957]

Rick, I truly wish I were wrong.  Being right this case just plain sucks.

Thanks man.  :)

Although I'll be delighted if anybody feels like putting a more hopeful, positive spin on the way that this news story has progressed.  I can imagine several more hopeful, optimistic, non-cynical ways of interpreting things; I'm just naturally too cynical to latch onto any of those interpretations first.

And, of course, no matter how the news story has been reported in the media, the President said what he said, and that will have ramifications going forward.  I hope there are meaningful and beneficial repercussions to his statements, and I hope they're all positive.

[Callie Del Noire]

Holy shit this moved off the national radar quick, at least according to the small portion of the media that I pay attention to.  Is this good news, meaning that nobody cares what Obama thinks, because the whole planet is already accepting of the notion of gay marriage?  I wish I could be convinced of that interpretation of events, but I'm too cynical to believe it.  Also I'm living right now on the border of the American South, and this is definitely not a place that is accepting of the notion of gay marriage.

Chris Brady, all I can say is, the way the story has developed seems to bear out your interpretation of events and to directly contradict mine.  I thought this was big news, but today it looks like I was wrong.  That actually bums me out, frankly.  Oh well.  *sullenly chomps his humble pie*

Don't worry.. it will get hauled up.. I'd say you'll see it a LOT after the party national conventions.

[Chris Brady]

Oh, I'm pretty sure it will.  The question is, though, will they be blaming Barack Obama for it, or Joe Biden?  Mr. Biden is the one who opened the can of worms first.  Sadly, though the VP rarely gets the limelight.

[Callie Del Noire]

Oh, I'm pretty sure it will.  The question is, though, will they be blaming Barack Obama for it, or Joe Biden?  Mr. Biden is the one who opened the can of worms first.  Sadly, though the VP rarely gets the limelight.

I've always felt that Biden was closely monitored and watched by his 'minders' and this tells me someone went for coffee at the wrong moment. He's not Dan Qayle but it is easy to say that he needed someone to screen what he says from time to time.

[rick957]

NPR (my primary news source, personally) claims that no less than 39 out of the 50 American states have some kind of ban on gay marriage.  They also acknowledge that more than half of the American public, according to polls, support gay marriage.  Giant contradiction there?  Yep!  No explanation, that I've heard, yet, for that.

FYI according to NPR, Biden's public statement in support of gay marriage is the sole reason Obama chose to affirm the same.  And they report all this as if Obama and his people had no fucking idea that Biden was going to come out in support of gay marriage in the way he did.  How fucked up is that?

[Callie Del Noire]

NPR (my primary news source, personally) claims that no less than 39 out of the 50 American states have some kind of ban on gay marriage.  They also acknowledge that more than half of the American public, according to polls, support gay marriage.  Giant contradiction there?  Yep!  No explanation, that I've heard, yet, for that.

Another indication that what our voter participation is like.

I was for ANY form of union and/or marriage that gave all couples some legal standing. I remember the case of the lesbian couple that were on a cruise with their kids (from one of the moms) but had to go ashore because one of them was suffering from something life threatening. The poor woman died alone.. because according to the state they were in..their union wasn't recognized and the spouse had no standing to see her own spouse.

The poor woman died in pain.. alone. They wouldn't even let her kids say good bye. Because it wasn't legal'.


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7633058&page=1#.T6y0z799kpI

[rick957]

The poor woman died in pain.. alone. They wouldn't even let her kids say good bye. Because it wasn't legal'.

Thanks for the link to the story.  This is such a fucking nightmare.  From the linked article, it sounds like the problems in this particular situation arose not only due to the lesbian relationship but also due to the fact that there was no marriage or civil union in place (possibly due to the state's laws prohibiting those things).  Regardless, this is a great example of why this can be such an important issue, and why it's so hard to justify taking a stance in opposition of gay marriage.

That said, there are conscionable people who are opposed to gay marriage, and I would personally love to understand their positions better, in case anyone out there wants to speak up.  I hope this is a place where such people can express their views frankly without being attacked in any inappropriate way, although obviously there will be some who may want to challenge those people's opinions.  Personally I want to understand the moral justification that many people claim in denouncing all gay marriages and civil unions and visitation rights in cases of illness; it seems so inhumane, so unforgivable to some of us, yet it makes sense to other people, and like it or not, those people live side by side with us and get an equal vote. 

Anyway, just sayin'.

[Trieste]

From what I know about fights against interracial marriage - which is the closest and most obvious comparison, legally - there was a similar pattern. It was considered unnatural and wrong, and there was a spate of legislation against it even while public opinion supported it. I know I personally believe that the dam will break and it's only a matter of time, but it can be frustrating, waiting for that turning point. That's not to say that I (and others) are passively waiting for things to turn around. It remains a subject on which there are several challenges and fights in progress both in the courts and socially. However, I really do think it's only a matter of time.

[gaggedLouise]

Yes, if Obama sticks to his guns on this one - and he is going to have to - well, after the Republican convention has been around this is going to be very present in the campaign. It's a dead sure rallying cry issue, and it's going to raise as much ire as it would in Britain if David Cameron had promised to disband MI6 because he thought they were an uncontrollable and unprofessional gang of deluded spooks.

And with four out of five U.S. states having bans on same-sex marriage (some of them constitutional bans?), this is going to be a long and very vocal haul even if there is an opening up on the federal level. Just like abortions, it's an issue very many people feel passionately about and which is seen as connecting the private and the political. In the long run, as Trieste was on to, LGBT marriage is likely to become legal in most U.S. states but that's going to be a long and rocky road.

[Ebb]

NPR (my primary news source, personally) claims that no less than 39 out of the 50 American states have some kind of ban on gay marriage.  They also acknowledge that more than half of the American public, according to polls, support gay marriage.  Giant contradiction there?  Yep!  No explanation, that I've heard, yet, for that.

I don't find this particularly surprising. The United States population isn't evenly divided among the states. 50% of the population is concentrated in only ten states, so when you look at things like "the number of states who do X", it tends not to be be representative of the popular opinion. It's also why the Senate is so skewed -- huge states like California (with 37 million people) have two senators, just like tiny states like Wyoming (600,000). More to the point, the more populous states tend to skew Blue/liberal, with Texas being a notable exception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

[Dragondancer]

That's where the House of Representatives comes in. *smiles*  But yeah, good points there about popular vote vs. representative vote, and concentrations of population.  :-)

The main issue is of course, as Callie mentioned, who actually shows up to vote. People may say they are "for" something in theory, but then not actually bother to show up at the polls. That's why the issues of gay marriage and abortion are always brought up again and again at election time (among other polarizing issues like gun rights, etc.). To mobilize the apathetic voters by giving them a sense of urgent purpose to protect and defend the America they hold dear.  Whichever side of the issues that represents to each individual.

[Sasquatch421]

It's pure election ploy... Due to things Obama has done and said before like getting rid of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and comments about gay rights I figured he supported gay marrige long ago. That could be the reason the issue went by so quick, because he was only comfirming what most people had figured out.

I think the biggest problem for gay rights will always be the older generation which have been raised as strict catholics or lutherans or whatever. They were raised in a time where they were taught that somethings just weren't right or a down right sin.

As time goes on and the younger generations start to replace the older in office I beleive we will see more changes since we are more open then the older generations will ever be...

[Callie Del Noire]

Thanks for the link to the story.  This is such a fucking nightmare.  From the linked article, it sounds like the problems in this particular situation arose not only due to the lesbian relationship but also due to the fact that there was no marriage or civil union in place (possibly due to the state's laws prohibiting those things).  Regardless, this is a great example of why this can be such an important issue, and why it's so hard to justify taking a stance in opposition of gay marriage.

Actually they were a civil union, I think. The problem was they were out of state and Florida doesn't recognize them or the couple's power of attorney that they set up. The hospital could have easily recognized the latter but for whatever reasons didn't. 

[rick957]

I don't find this particularly surprising. The United States population isn't evenly divided among the states. 50% of the population is concentrated in only ten states, so when you look at things like "the number of states who do X", it tends not to be be representative of the popular opinion. It's also why the Senate is so skewed -- huge states like California (with 37 million people) have two senators, just like tiny states like Wyoming (600,000). More to the point, the more populous states tend to skew Blue/liberal, with Texas being a notable exception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

Oh yeah, duh.  Shoulda figured that out myself.  Thanks for pointing this out.

[Callie Del Noire]

That's where the House of Representatives comes in. *smiles*  But yeah, good points there about popular vote vs. representative vote, and concentrations of population.  :-)

The main issue is of course, as Callie mentioned, who actually shows up to vote. People may say they are "for" something in theory, but then not actually bother to show up at the polls. That's why the issues of gay marriage and abortion are always brought up again and again at election time (among other polarizing issues like gun rights, etc.). To mobilize the apathetic voters by giving them a sense of urgent purpose to protect and defend the America they hold dear.  Whichever side of the issues that represents to each individual.

Remember for most of the last Forty years only about 1/2 of the people who are eligible to vote bother to register.. so you're typically looking between 1/3 to 1/4 of the actually voting populace participates in the actual elections in any given cycle. It's gotten better but one or two cycles don't count in my mind.. the '10 election and the Tea Party surge tells me the moderate vote that put the president in office didn't follow up on the push for a more moderate congress. They simply sat back and let things go by.

[Caela]

Actually they were a civil union, I think. The problem was they were out of state and Florida doesn't recognize them or the couple's power of attorney that they set up. The hospital could have easily recognized the latter but for whatever reasons didn't.

Some of that may depend on how the Florida law is written. For example, the NC constitutional amendment says specifically that it won't recognize any union of anything but a straight married couple and that anything that approximates those rights will not be legally recognized either, making a gay/lebian/or even straight UNMARRIED couples POA's ignorable.

[Callie Del Noire]

Some of that may depend on how the Florida law is written. For example, the NC constitutional amendment says specifically that it won't recognize any union of anything but a straight married couple and that anything that approximates those rights will not be legally recognized either, making a gay/lebian/or even straight UNMARRIED couples POA's ignorable.

Exactly.. which is why I'm saddened by the atrociity my home state just passed this week. It does nothing be ensure that pain and suffering folllows in it's wake.. and the Governor Liv 'I rule by popularity poll outcomes' Purdue will make it almost a dead certainty that things will only get worse.

[AndyZ]

Well, nobody answered my question, so I did some research on it on my own.

http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-obamas-bullshit-gay-marriage-announcement?tag=civil-rights

Apparently it's purely what he's saying his own personal beliefs are, and that it remains a states' rights issue.

Is he going to actually change anything?  Nope.  It just becomes a question of what the candidate personally believes, not a question of what he's actually going to do.  Personally, I only care about the actions that politicians will take, not the words.

[Caela]

Exactly.. which is why I'm saddened by the atrociity my home state just passed this week. It does nothing be ensure that pain and suffering folllows in it's wake.. and the Governor Liv 'I rule by popularity poll outcomes' Purdue will make it almost a dead certainty that things will only get worse.

I am ashamed of the fact that my own state has similar statues on the books as NC. It blows my mind that so many people are willing to cast votes against something that has no effect on them whatsoever! Someone else getting married canNOT devalue their own marriage in any way...only THEY can do that!

Well, nobody answered my question, so I did some research on it on my own.

http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-obamas-bullshit-gay-marriage-announcement?tag=civil-rights

Apparently it's purely what he's saying his own personal beliefs are, and that it remains a states' rights issue.

Is he going to actually change anything?  Nope.  It just becomes a question of what the candidate personally believes, not a question of what he's actually going to do.  Personally, I only care about the actions that politicians will take, not the words.

lol Andy, you can never trust a politicians words unless they back them up with a voting record to match!

[Chris Brady]

Is he going to actually change anything?  Nope.  It just becomes a question of what the candidate personally believes, not a question of what he's actually going to do.  Personally, I only care about the actions that politicians will take, not the words.

But that's just it. Politicians, the people you SEE, don't do anything.  At all.  All they do is get elected, and get a paycheck.  Oh, and maybe spend time in front of a camera.

That's pretty much what the job entails.  How else could ACTORS get the job??

[Trieste]

Wow, uh, thanks a lot. Not all actors are shallow assholes, and the most successful actors I know are quite smart. They also tend to be passionate, well-spoken people, many of whom are accustomed to doing research about things - whether it's for a part or for a bill, it doesn't matter, you still have to pay attention to detail.

In my opinion, people who go into politics from other pursuits (yes, even acting) are preferable to the career politicians any day.

[kylie]

Is he going to actually change anything?  Nope.  It just becomes a question of what the candidate personally believes, not a question of what he's actually going to do.  Personally, I only care about the actions that politicians will take, not the words.

     There's often a share of action, a share of extra rhetoric, and a certain mix of bureaucratic evolution-drift.  There is also some portion where the bureaucracy itself must respond to changes in the society, and the executive may or may not accept that.  As for changing "anything": The president has contributed to the national debate, and that forces other politicians to treat the issue somewhat more seriously.  It also makes some difference what federal agencies do.  The administration does not enforce DOMA.  It has very recently allowed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to put protection on the basis of gender presentation, on the books. 

     In my opinion and that of many LGBTQ, it would be great to have an executive order -- if not a law, but something -- that provides firm protection on the basis of orientation.  So it's unfortunate that there has been a lot of neglect/procrastination on that point.  Being adventurous, I would have liked to see the issue forced more to the front early in his administration -- but many people say that would have been bad strategy in the rigid institutions we have. 

    So if you are really set on blaming Obama or his administration for something:  Then, blame them for not first challenging the arbitrary numbers required to override a Senate veto, and then (assuming they succeeded) pushing forward with stronger economic stimulus, gay marriage, and other things.  All while dealing with the inherited economic morass and btw, pursuing health care policy.  I actually want to say I would have at least tried to push through all that if it were me in the big chair...  But even without knowing all the Washington process, I can see how people believe it was technically impossible. 

      It is hardly Obama's sole "fault" that the society still relegates the marriage issue to the state level.  Regardless of whether or not one believes even the first Congress of his administration would have voted in legislation to back gay marriage...  Let's suppose that either Congressional legislation or the Executive put forth rules supporting gay marriage as a national good.  If in a legal challenge, the Supreme Court did not uphold that, then Obama might have to pull a contemporary Andrew Jackson, and struggle through a Constitutional crisis.  Even if he did so, the tension would be great, certain areas might not accept the ruling without deployment of federal security units, and a subsequent administration could declare the whole business illegal. Should Obama have at least tried, perhaps so we could blame it squarely on the Congress or the Court?  Perhaps.  I kind of want to say yes.  But plenty of LGBTQ organizations have faced similar dilemmas in setting strategy.

     As for the actor who comes first to my mind, Reagan:  His administration took plenty of action and/or inaction (whichever you prefer to call it), and contributed somewhat to income inequality and dramatically to wealth inequality.  Was that more decisive?  I don't know, but the outcome was not what I might have preferred.

[AndyZ]

lol Andy, you can never trust a politicians words unless they back them up with a voting record to match!

See, I'd have more faith in Obama if he presented a law even knowing it'd be shut down.

[quote author=http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/05/vice-president-joe-biden-says-comfortable-with-gay-marriage-but-won-promise-endorsement-obama-administration/7L8FjHlNMmMNVw4DUi4j0J/story.html]
“Look [at] the executive orders he’s put in place. Any hospital that gets federal funding, which is almost all of them, they can’t deny a partner from being able to have access to their partner who’s ill.
[/quote]

Now, I realize you can't truly know what a politician will do until they're in office.  However, I'll agree with Gawker that if it was more than just talk, there are things he'd actually do.

In my opinion, people who go into politics from other pursuits (yes, even acting) are preferable to the career politicians any day.

Just wanted to +1 this.

    So if you are really set on blaming Obama or his administration for something:  Then, blame them for not first challenging the arbitrary numbers required to override a Senate veto, and then (assuming they succeeded) pushing forward with stronger economic stimulus, gay marriage, and other things.  All while dealing with the inherited economic morass and btw, pursuing health care policy.  I actually want to say I would have at least tried to push through all that if it were me in the big chair...  But even without knowing all the Washington process, I can see how people believe it was technically impossible. 

I actually prefer to blame Obama for what he did while there were enough Democrats to override a Senate veto.

You can blame the Republicans all you want (crap knows I do), but when there's a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate, and things get even worse, it's harder to keep claiming unilateral blame.

I still don't understand: just what is it that people think Bush did that caused the Great Recession?  I'm not going to argue he was a boob, but things have gotten so much worse in spite of (or because of) Obama's various actions since his election that the subsequent Republican elections have been landslides.  Is the claim simply that they didn't know how bad things were even though they claim that they can micromanage everything?

P.S.  If I can get a copy PMed of the picture for your avatar, that'd be awesome.

[kylie]

     I actually prefer to blame Obama for what he did while there were enough Democrats to override a Senate veto.  You can blame the Republicans all you want (crap knows I do), but when there's a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate, and things get even worse, it's harder to keep claiming unilateral blame.

     As I recall, it seemed doubtful that the Democrats would have voted as a bloc on the issue.  It's a bit much to blame Obama alone for that, too.  Pick on the figurehead a little for not pushing every issue and living up to the campaign, sure.  I'm tempted to do so there, as well.  But I can also understand the calculations.  I don't see how you can reasonably blame him personally for the state of the society he's living in. 

I still don't understand: just what is it that people think Bush did that caused the Great Recession?

     There are other threads full of this.  For now, I simply dispute the notion that someone being an actor, or not, is obviously a good precedent.  You don't have to agree with me, but it's hardly thorough to vaguely claim that an actor was somehow obviously better.  To stay on topic, then: Reagan was previously an actor, yet he apparently wasn't pushing toward gay marriage either.  That is, if you even want anyone pushing that way.  I sort of wonder if you're more concerned with finding any slightest excuse to pick on Obama as a symbolic figure, than with actual questions of gay rights.  EDIT:  And I'm sorry if I'm mixing you up with some of the other preceding stuff, on that point.  I just wonder.

[AndyZ]

Yeah, all the actor and Reagan stuff was sarcasm from other folks to try to deflect my point.  It's okay, though; I've goofed on posts too.

I was the one making the point that Obama can talk about what he wants to do, just like he talks about wanting to close Gitmo, have a transparent administration, have equal pay between genders, and so on.  If he's happy leaving it as a states' rights issue, though, does it really matter what he thinks?  Should we believe him when he flops around on the issue as soon as he ramps up his fundraising attempts, or is it more likely that he's just all talk?

My actual views on marriage have been put on other threads, but since I doubt you've seen them, I'll repeat: I don't think the government should be involved in marriage whatsoever.  If there's some reason that the government needs to be so very involved in my life, I would appreciate to know.

Edit: In case it needs expressly stated, Obama is not by any means the only politician who's full of crap.  He's just the only one mentioned (by title) in the original post.

[kylie]

I was the one making the point that Obama can talk about what he wants to do, just like he talks about wanting to close Gitmo, have a transparent administration, have equal pay between genders, and so on.  If he's happy leaving it as a states' rights issue, though, does it really matter what he thinks?  Should we believe him when he flops around on the issue as soon as he ramps up his fundraising attempts, or is it more likely that he's just all talk?

     It may be due to the campaign coming up, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a cold-hearted plan by Obama or the campaign.  At the least, that does not show that marketing was the only calculation involved, even if it were a factor.  During campaign season, you get lots of people running around poking for new answers about various issues.  It's also possible that the administration wants to change policy but believes the results would be worse than acting more incrementally.  The line between good marketing in this case (given that public opinion is moving toward support for gay marriage overall) and honest argument is blurry. 

    I actually agree the administration should try harder.  I've said so elsewhere, and I've been pretty critical on that point.  I would actually prefer the government offered the same benefits to everyone, and not just couples or married people.  That said, if we're not going to dispose of privileges based upon marriage period, then I'll take sponsorship of same-sex marriage as a start.  People can't seem to stop drawing boundaries around households/communities, and for too long the legal fences have been designed in this society to keep same-sex relationships hidden or restricted. 

     Regardless, I still wouldn't go so far as to call it "all talk."  Maybe it's the specific words, but that implies to me that you think they're being dishonest or making no impact at all.  To me, that can come across rather like saying:  No one noticed or changed because Obama is a Black president.  Things certainly haven't changed enough or as fast as I might wish, but I do think there is an impact.

    It doesn't change current national marriage policy, if that is all you mean.  It may not change the popular opinions of the issue overnight.  But it has some real impact on how the debate flows.  More people feel they have to answer the question, to begin with.  Politicians may find that more organizations are officially rating them on this issue than before.  It becomes that much clearer how federal agencies may and may not act under Obama's watch, on areas that are not formal law but they play a part in setting real precedent on related issues.  Foreign leaders may take the US a little more seriously when it comes to the question of aid money or in certain areas, intervention or human rights prosecutions possibly being tied (at least in part) to gay rights.       

     By the way, but..  Personally, I don't care much for the term "flop" (or flip-flop) as it seems to imply there's no principle or logic behind anything.  It's acoustically (implies the sound of lightweight objects) and socially (used much more readily in bars than in reports or policy documents) a cheap shot sort of term to me.  We can and do have lots of contradictory statements, even action, without necessarily having empty heads in office.  I also associate the term historically with its specific origins: the Republicans campaigning v. Kerry, which is when I believe it stuck in the public lexicon.  And when I think of that campaign too much it gets even worse, because then I extend the term to association with things like the Swift Boat group which seem rather crude and distasteful to me.

     Thanks for the rest, though.  I wasn't going to pick through every post to try to figure out the whole history of the exchange about Reagan, etc.  It just all felt off to me.

[AndyZ]

     It may be due to the campaign coming up, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a cold-hearted plan by Obama or the campaign.  At the least, that does not show that marketing was the only calculation involved, even if it were a factor.  During campaign season, you get lots of people running around poking for new answers about various issues.  It's also possible that the administration wants to change policy but believes the results would be worse than acting more incrementally.  The line between good marketing in this case (given that public opinion is moving toward support for gay marriage overall) and honest argument is blurry. 

Personally, I don't really care what politicians feel on things that they aren't going to act upon.  I've argued for some time that we need more than two parties, but since I seem to be in the minority there, I'll end up nixing out various patterns as unlikely and end up comparing the two candidates on clear lines and records.

I actually agree the administration should try harder.  I've said so elsewhere, and I've been pretty critical on that point.  I would actually prefer the government offered the same benefits to everyone, and not just couples or married people.  That said, if we're not going to dispose of privileges based upon marriage period, then I'll take sponsorship of same-sex marriage as a start.  People can't seem to stop drawing boundaries around households/communities, and for too long the legal fences have been designed in this society to keep same-sex relationships hidden or restricted. 

When I was younger, my response to the question of gay marriage was that I was fine with civil unions and that we should just go with that, and a friend responded, "So are you fine with straight couples getting civil unions also?"

I don't think same sex couples should be completely denied of rights which married couples have, and neither do I think that churches should be forced to host gay marriages in violation of their teachings.  However, I really don't understand why it's necessary for the government to authorize and legislate marriage at all.

I'm probably rambling since we're in agreement on this point.

Regardless, I still wouldn't go so far as to call it "all talk."  Maybe it's the specific words, but that implies to me that you think they're being dishonest or making no impact at all.  To me, that can come across rather like saying:  No one noticed or changed because Obama is a Black president.  Things certainly haven't changed enough or as fast as I might wish, but I do think there is an impact.

It's chicken-and-egg, but I actually think that Obama was elected because we're tolerant of race, not that Obama's election made us more tolerant.  If all it takes for some people to change their minds on the issue is for Barack Obama to speak up, I pity those people and worry about what else they'll end up doing.

Although, it does worry me a little how many people that I've met who admit that they voted for Obama because he was black.  I think MLK Jr. would be ashamed to see people voting purely on color of skin, regardless of which skin color that is.

It doesn't change current national marriage policy, if that is all you mean.  It may not change the popular opinions of the issue overnight.  But it has some real impact on how the debate flows.  More people feel they have to answer the question, to begin with.  Politicians may find that more organizations are officially rating them on this issue than before.  It becomes that much clearer how federal agencies may and may not act under Obama's watch, on areas that are not formal law but they play a part in setting real precedent on related issues.  Foreign leaders may take the US a little more seriously when it comes to the question of aid money or in certain areas, intervention or human rights prosecutions possibly being tied (at least in part) to gay rights.       

See, if we go the question of open dialogue with two sides, I think that any side other than the two major claims get ignored and forgotten.  This is a common stance where people get pushed into a debate before considering that there might be a middle ground or alternative viewpoint.

I'm not overly aware of how the federal agencies might act differently, areas in setting precedent and so on, so I won't attempt to comment there.  I do feel that countries shouldn't hold back aid money based solely upon the actions of that country's government, but that's a discussion for another debate.

By the way, but..  Personally, I don't care much for the term "flop" (or flip-flop) as it seems to imply there's no principle or logic behind anything.  It's acoustically (implies the sound of lightweight objects) and socially (used much more readily in bars than in reports or policy documents) a cheap shot sort of term to me.  We can and do have lots of contradictory statements, even action, without necessarily having empty heads in office.  I also associate the term historically with its specific origins: the Republicans campaigning v. Kerry, which is when I believe it stuck in the public lexicon.  And when I think of that campaign too much it gets even worse, because then I extend the term to association with things like the Swift Boat group which seem rather crude and distasteful to me.

Good point, well made.  Let the record show that I don't see reconsidering a point to be a sign of weakness, and if a politician does so, doing so during an election year is absolutely the best time.  Now, I do take issue when a politician switches parties during their term, but that's because the people voted for something and aren't being properly represented when that happens.

Thanks for the rest, though.  I wasn't going to pick through every post to try to figure out the whole history of the exchange about Reagan, etc.  It just all felt off to me.

Sorry I'm not always clear.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I hate to break it to people, but Obama's whole "gay marriage" statement was nothing but corporate propaganda.

The power elite want to shift the dialogue in the 2012 election season from economics (read: how the rich keep getting richer while the rest of us get poorer) to moral issues (read: things that incite emotion yet do not involve money).  So they ordered Obama to endorse homosexual marriage--knowing that would immediately get picked up on and ran with.  Good front men say what their bosses tell them to (just like Bush II, Clinton, and Bush I), and so Obama dutifully hopped on the bandwagon.

By the way, the government (I don't mean the clowns we pull the levers for once every four years, I mean the Forbes 400, the only people whose opinions actually matter) doesn't really give a rat's ass about homosexual marriage.  But they will certainly raise the issue as a red herring to distract us all if it looks like the lumpenproles start catching on to how they're getting screwed.

[Chris Brady]

Ah, Gamer.  It's more likely that was a Republican plan.  I mean, that's what their plan seems to be.  Thing is, three days before Obama came out about the the whole Gay Marriage thing, Joe Biden, the current VP already responded that was OK with it.  So it's more like the Democrats needed to show that they were behind Mr. Biden.  They can't have party disunity.  If they show any sort of interparty conflict, then their vote is sunk.

[Torch]

  However, I really don't understand why it's necessary for the government to authorize and legislate marriage at all.

Currently, couples who want to marry have basically two options: a religious ceremony officiated by a clergy member, or a civil ceremony officiated by a judge, court clerk or justice of the peace.

If you remove the civil option, what other choice do couples have?

[OldSchoolGamer]

Currently, couples who want to marry have basically two options: a religious ceremony officiated by a clergy member, or a civil ceremony officiated by a judge, court clerk or justice of the peace.

If you remove the civil option, what other choice do couples have?

I say take government out of the loop.

Have the government issue civil unions to any two consenting unrelated adults who want one.  The civil union is strictly a legal instrument granting community property, power of attorney of each over the other, and custody of children.  Nowhere does it say "marriage."

After the couple gets their civil union that takes care of the legalities of a relationship, they can then get married at any church or other institution willing to perform the ceremony.  The church or institution could grant or deny marriage to anyone it so chose by any criteria it chose.  The ceremony would have whatever spiritual and religious significance the couple's faith or creed (if any) deemed it to have.  If the couple were atheists, they could take the civil union and call it a day.

This would remove government from the homosexual marriage equation.  The State would no longer be in the marriage business.

[AndyZ]

I keep attempting to argue a point with insufficient data, so I think I'm going to just have to pop out and show my ignorance, directly asking for information.

Other than the question of basic human rights, one of the major issues involving gay marriage is hospital visitations.  I've read and heard stories about people not being allowed to see their partner in the hospital.  Now, I'm a bit confused on this one because I can go visit my friend in the hospital without being in any relationship at all.

Another one is inheritance and legal rights.  Also big on in the hospital, if I get critically injured or die, the first place that people will look is my family to handle unfinished affairs.  They'll decide what to do if I'm in a coma, for example.  This matter can be handled by writing out a will.

Finally, if you're married, you pay a joint tax rate.  I think somebody said that one of the brackets is $150, for a single person but $250, for a family, but I doubt that's accurate, just showing one of the things that government-recognized marriage is used for.

What other things make government-recognized marriage necessary?  Why does the government need to know when you're married and when you're single?

I say take government out of the loop.

Have the government issue civil unions to any two consenting unrelated adults who want one.  The civil union is strictly a legal instrument granting community property, power of attorney of each over the other, and custody of children.  Nowhere does it say "marriage."

After the couple gets their civil union that takes care of the legalities of a relationship, they can then get married at any church or other institution willing to perform the ceremony.  The church or institution could grant or deny marriage to anyone it so chose by any criteria it chose.  The ceremony would have whatever spiritual and religious significance the couple's faith or creed (if any) deemed it to have.  If the couple were atheists, they could take the civil union and call it a day.

This would remove government from the homosexual marriage equation.  The State would no longer be in the marriage business.

OSG, you posted right before I finished, but I'm too lazy to change my post.  You list community property, power of attorney and custody of children.

I'm pretty sure you don't need to be married to have communal property, though if I'm wrong there, please inform me.  I would expect power of attorney to fall under one's will.

Custody of children I'm not honestly sure about, though if someone can find out for me, I'd appreciate.

I would imagine that once you call it civil union, concepts like polygamy will open up as well.  There'd probably be bits and pieces that had to be fixed.

Should this be opened up as a new thread?  We're probably off topic.

[Callie Del Noire]

Not just hospital visitations AndyZ..

A civil union doesn't have all the legal standings of a marriage in some jurisdicitons. If your spouse is sick, you don't have legal authority to authorize treatment, your custody of children isn't always guaranteed, the matter of inheritance and estate issues isn't automatically going to 'default' to your spouse like it would in a marriage. Coverage of your spouse in insurance isn't assured as well.

There are literally HUNDREDS of issues that aren't addressed, not to mention each jurisdiction handles them differently. There is no uniform standard of treatment.

[AndyZ]

Not just hospital visitations AndyZ..

A civil union doesn't have all the legal standings of a marriage in some jurisdicitons. If your spouse is sick, you don't have legal authority to authorize treatment, your custody of children isn't always guaranteed, the matter of inheritance and estate issues isn't automatically going to 'default' to your spouse like it would in a marriage. Coverage of your spouse in insurance isn't assured as well.

There are literally HUNDREDS of issues that aren't addressed, not to mention each jurisdiction handles them differently. There is no uniform standard of treatment.

Could you tell me where I can get a list about the various effects of marriage?  Whether it gets compared and contrasted to various states' civil unions is entirely optional; I just want to know why the government has to be so involved.  You have a few listed, but if there's hundreds of issues, I'd like to check over it all.

[Callie Del Noire]

Could you tell me where I can get a list about the various effects of marriage?  Whether it gets compared and contrasted to various states' civil unions is entirely optional; I just want to know why the government has to be so involved.  You have a few listed, but if there's hundreds of issues, I'd like to check over it all.

Here is a good 'in a nutshell' summary.

http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

[AndyZ]

Thank you kindly.

[OldSchoolGamer]

There are literally HUNDREDS of issues that aren't addressed, not to mention each jurisdiction handles them differently. There is no uniform standard of treatment.

True...and my idea of civil unions was the proverbial 10,000' view.  I'm sure lots of lawyers will get lots of hours logged working out lots of little details to the eighteenth decimal place and Article 35, Section F, Subsection 12, Paragraph 3. 

And of course, the Religious Right will object, but perhaps not as strenuously as one might think at first blush.  There's something in this for them too.  One of the Right's big fears is that the Barack "Obummer" Obama, being the commieIslamofascist he is, will send his troops out to round up all pastors who refuse to perform gay marriages and send them to a FEMA camp so the black helicopters can watch over them and HAARP can scramble their brains.  The civil union idea would put marriage firmly in the hands of private institutions, ensuring full First Amendment protection for any church's decision not to perform homosexual marriages.

[Callie Del Noire]

True...and my idea of civil unions was the proverbial 10,000' view.  I'm sure lots of lawyers will get lots of hours logged working out lots of little details to the eighteenth decimal place and Article 35, Section F, Subsection 12, Paragraph 3. 

And of course, the Religious Right will object, but perhaps not as strenuously as one might think at first blush.  There's something in this for them too.  One of the Right's big fears is that the Barack "Obummer" Obama, being the commieIslamofascist he is, will send his troops out to round up all pastors who refuse to perform gay marriages and send them to a FEMA camp so the black helicopters can watch over them and HAARP can scramble their brains.  The civil union idea would put marriage firmly in the hands of private institutions, ensuring full First Amendment protection for any church's decision not to perform homosexual marriages.

Take away the federal benefits of 'Marriage' and you'll have lynch mobs in the streets. The mind boggles at the legal implosions that would come from that alone.

I, as a single hetro male without any options to date, would say as an outside observer that it would be quite benefitial to 'accept' civil unions but push for equal treatment under the law. It's galling but you get your benefits..and a generation from now the fundies will have lost their footing in this and push then.

[Caela]

AndyZ, I'm going to comment on hospital visitations since I work in one and it's a system I'm familiar with. You mentioned being able to visit a friend in the hospital and not being related or dating them. Often this is true, HOWEVER, suppose "John" was in a car accident and couldn't make medical decisions for himself, if he was married, those decisions would fall to his wife. John isn't married though, John is a gay man who has been with his partner "Mark" for the last 15 years of his life but they live in a state like NC, or MI, where amendments have been added to the state constitutions not only forbidding marriage but civil unions or anything approximating the "rights retained for a married couple".

What this means is that John's uber-fundamentalist parents (who haven't spoken to John in at least 10 years because they refuse to support his being gay) can swoop in, put a security lock on John's name, bar Mark from entering the room (depending on the circumstances they could even have him escorted out of the hospital) and could then stand over his bedside bemoaning the fact that he has no wife to love him, while the man he loves, who has been his partner for over a decade isn't even allowed to say goodbye much less be the one who is making the medical decisions for his own partner.

And yes, that little sections about "not approximating the rights of a married couple" does mean that things like Medical Powers of Attorney and even Wills could be fought and tossed out in cases such as this because such things are considered the right of a spouse. As a side note, that little section could also be applied to heterosexual couples who aren't married as well.

[AndyZ]

It's galling but you get your benefits..and a generation from now the fundies will have lost their footing in this and push then.

My only issue here (and it's off topic) is that I'm not big on people making deals only to try to push for more later.  If a compromise takes two people to 50-50, I've seen any number of renegotiations where the 50 becomes a starting point, and suddenly it's 75, then 87.5 and so on.

Compromising and finding a middle ground becomes far less possible when you can't trust the other person to accept a compromise, and it becomes very hard to trust people to accept a compromise when they start going, "Well, we're already doing X, we may as well jump to Y."

[Additional paragraph removed after I decided it was too pathos-heavy]

AndyZ, I'm going to comment on hospital visitations since I work in one and it's a system I'm familiar with.

Your comment is appreciated.  I know full well that I don't understand all this stuff and do genuinely want input.  Thank you ^_^

You mentioned being able to visit a friend in the hospital and not being related or dating them. Often this is true, HOWEVER, suppose "John" was in a car accident and couldn't make medical decisions for himself, if he was married, those decisions would fall to his wife. John isn't married though, John is a gay man who has been with his partner "Mark" for the last 15 years of his life but they live in a state like NC, or MI, where amendments have been added to the state constitutions not only forbidding marriage but civil unions or anything approximating the "rights retained for a married couple".

What this means is that John's uber-fundamentalist parents (who haven't spoken to John in at least 10 years because they refuse to support his being gay) can swoop in, put a security lock on John's name, bar Mark from entering the room (depending on the circumstances they could even have him escorted out of the hospital) and could then stand over his bedside bemoaning the fact that he has no wife to love him, while the man he loves, who has been his partner for over a decade isn't even allowed to say goodbye much less be the one who is making the medical decisions for his own partner.

And yes, that little sections about "not approximating the rights of a married couple" does mean that things like Medical Powers of Attorney and even Wills could be fought and tossed out in cases such as this because such things are considered the right of a spouse. As a side note, that little section could also be applied to heterosexual couples who aren't married as well.

Wait, so even if I write up a will saying that I want Mr. X to have Medical Power of Attorney over me, it can be thrown out by a court if I'm not also married?

I like to take things out of context of the original argument to ensure that fairness isn't skewed in an attempt to make a point; you've probably seen me do this with other matters.  The examples are usually extreme simply to ensure that no one feels I'm picking on their group, and when I can, any pathos generated points in the opposite direction from the general argument.

Let's say that I believe in the aliens having overtaken the world and that only certain procedures are safe.  I want to have my friend Mr. Gray handle my power of attorney because only he knows which parts of the medical treatment won't involve my brain being scrambled.  My family would be able to throw this out in court despite my clear written wishes?

[Oniya]

Let's say that I believe in the aliens having overtaken the world and that only certain procedures are safe.  I want to have my friend Mr. Gray handle my power of attorney because only he knows which parts of the medical treatment won't involve my brain being scrambled.  My family would be able to throw this out in court despite my clear written wishes?

They might contest that one on competency grounds.  >_> 

Seriously, though, being a spouse automatically grants certain rights and privileges.  I cannot be compelled to testify against Mr. Oniya in a court of law.  'John' and 'Mark' don't have that privilege, and no legal convolutions can grant it, to my knowledge.  In the absence of a will, my estate goes to my spouse.  In the absence of a will, 'John's' estate goes to his next of kin - perhaps those very fundamentalists that barred his lover from his side.  (True, this is a great argument for making a will, but sometimes things happen.)  With no other document than my marriage license, Mr. Oniya knows that if something happens to me, the default is for the little Oni to remain with him.  My sister's wife had to adopt my nephew, with all the additional paperwork and expense that entails, just in case something happens to my sister and my parents get a hair up their butts about who should raise their only grandson.

[AndyZ]

Good point on competency; I forgot the "sound mind" bit when I invented the example.

I've heard repeatedly that everyone should make out a will.  I can certainly understand the convenience of a simple marriage handling matters, but I'm personally more focused on understanding the bits which can't be solved any other way.

Not being able to be compelled to testify certainly qualifies there, but I don't understand the reason for such a law to exist in the first place.  If you don't want to testify against someone, why would the court force you?

One thought that comes to mind would be coercion, where the mob threatens to kill someone if they testify before the court.  I'm not sure that the mob would accept the premise that you were forced to testify by the state, though.  You'd end up either being punished by the state or punished by the mob, with neither prospect being appealing.

Researching the matter now, though I appreciate any offers of further information on the matter...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nebraska-supreme-court-rules-that-woman-can-be-compelled-to-testify-in-sex-case-or-face-jail/2012/05/11/gIQAmKxRIU_story.html

I only read the first few paragraphs, but I think it's made clear by the author that forcing the victim to testify isn't a good thing.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4903.04

Not fully understanding the legalese here, but it seems to be saying that if someone refuses to testify against themselves, other people involved can be forced to testify.  Really not liking this.

Now, there may be a reason for having this sort of rule, but unless someone can offer one, I don't like the idea of compelling people to testify at all.



Adoption gets a little trickier.

My knee-jerk reaction is that if you're the parent or guardian of the child, you should be allowed to set up anyone you want as godparent.  Like many of the other matters, this transcends questions of sexuality in my mind.

Now, I do see how this can be abused, when some people clearly cannot be fit parents, but marriage shouldn't make this the end-all either.  It is easy to invent an example of a widow marrying a man who is abusive to both wife and children, and how you wouldn't want the kids going to him if her neck breaks when she "falls down some stairs."  However, even if they had to jump through all kinds of bureaucratic hoops in order to give him custody, she may yet do so anyway.

I guess I'll just ask: how much paperwork and expense is entailed, and for what purposes?

[kylie]

NPR (my primary news source, personally) claims that no less than 39 out of the 50 American states have some kind of ban on gay marriage.  They also acknowledge that more than half of the American public, according to polls, support gay marriage.  Giant contradiction there?  Yep!  No explanation, that I've heard, yet, for that.

There have been some other good answers.  Zipping through now, but I picked up some more micro-level suggestions that might also apply. 

I think demographics are the key. According to the Pew poll I linked up top, fully 56 percent of seniors still oppose gay marriage. Among voters 18 to 29, it’s just 30 percent. Grandma and grandpa can be guaranteed to turn out while junior really can’t, so it’s grandma and grandpa who ultimately make the laws. (See also: Entitlements.) Beyond that, the national polls are typically of adults, not actual voters. It may well be that the average American adult shrugs at gay marriage, but shruggers tend not to make it to the polling place. In all likelihood opponents of gay marriage are more motivated, which means they’ll be overrepresented in the voting booth. And finally, it could be that there’s a slight NIMBY problem at work in state votes as opposed to national polls. Some people, when asked whether they support gay marriage in the abstract, might say “sure” because they’re dealing with a hypothetical. When suddenly they’re not dealing with a hypothetical but rather the prospect of lots of gay couples moving to their state to marry if no ban is enacted, the calculations for some fraction of those voters might change.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/10/if-national-polls-show-support-for-gay-marriage-why-does-it-keep-losing-in-state-votes/

[Caela]

Let's say that I believe in the aliens having overtaken the world and that only certain procedures are safe.  I want to have my friend Mr. Gray handle my power of attorney because only he knows which parts of the medical treatment won't involve my brain being scrambled.  My family would be able to throw this out in court despite my clear written wishes?

Put simply...yes.

The way the more extreme amendments are written your parents could do exactly that because they are worded in such a way that rights that approximate those rights given to married spouses are invalid. Of course as soon as this actually happen it will be taken to court  where people will spend years arguing the validity, and constitutionality of it (and hopefully end up getting some of these amendments trashed or seriously revised) but the people who were being fought over could very easily be dead before a decision is made.

[Oniya]

Not being able to be compelled to testify certainly qualifies there, but I don't understand the reason for such a law to exist in the first place.  If you don't want to testify against someone, why would the court force you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28evidence%29

People are subpoenaed all the time.  The trust necessary to maintain certain relationships, however, would be undermined if it was possible for the 'confidante' to be forced to testify against the 'confider'.  Priests cannot be forced to reveal what someone tells them in confessional.  Doctors can't be forced to reveal what's told to them in the course of treatment (both physical and mental health professionals).  Lawyers cannot reveal what their clients tell them.  And husbands and wives cannot be made to testify against each other.

[AndyZ]

Put simply...yes.

The way the more extreme amendments are written your parents could do exactly that because they are worded in such a way that rights that approximate those rights given to married spouses are invalid. Of course as soon as this actually happen it will be taken to court  where people will spend years arguing the validity, and constitutionality of it (and hopefully end up getting some of these amendments trashed or seriously revised) but the people who were being fought over could very easily be dead before a decision is made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28evidence%29

People are subpoenaed all the time.  The trust necessary to maintain certain relationships, however, would be undermined if it was possible for the 'confidante' to be forced to testify against the 'confider'.  Priests cannot be forced to reveal what someone tells them in confessional.  Doctors can't be forced to reveal what's told to them in the course of treatment (both physical and mental health professionals).  Lawyers cannot reveal what their clients tell them.  And husbands and wives cannot be made to testify against each other.

Can you please give an example of a time when it would be necessary to force someone to give evidence even when they don't want to?

The way I figure it, we shouldn't be trying to pull out niche exceptions when you can't testify.  You should have the state prove that it's necessary in certain situations to force someone to give  information even when they don't want to.

[kylie]

     Perhaps as something of a little salve to these parts...

Personally, I don't really care what politicians feel on things that they aren't going to act upon.

...and...

I'm not overly aware of how the federal agencies might act differently, areas in setting precedent and so on, so I won't attempt to comment there.

...
     I think the following is an interesting read and it touches on some things the administration has done or not done at less publicized agency levels...  Although I haven't picked over it, and I might not agree with all the arguments and conclusions. 
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/what-straight-allies-need-to-understand-about-gay-marriage-and-states-rights/257111/
 

I don't think same sex couples should be completely denied of rights which married couples have, and neither do I think that churches should be forced to host gay marriages in violation of their teachings.

I'm not sure the distinction between "hosting" and "performing" is clear to everyone who reads that.  If you read it quickly, it sounds like the churches might be forced to actually officiate same-sex marriage services.  There is a significant possible slippage in the way we use the word "host" -- It could have either of those meanings.  This rather makes me think the article itself may have been written more as an axe grinding exercise, and less as clear and full reporting of the situation.

     Granted, churches might consider their space to be something where only events they approve of should take place, but I have to agree with the counterargument.  If they are operating in a role that qualifies them as a public hospitality business, then they cannot deny service to whole categories of people any more than other businesses.  Thus the analogy presented in the article you cite:

If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.”

Now, I don't know if there are say, spas or bed and breakfasts that could be allowed to close their doors to certain types of people.  If there are, then it might be interesting to explore whether there is any real difference. 

     Honestly, I sort of wonder how many would wish to be married in a church where the clergy are fundamentally opposed to their relationships?  Pay real money and have a memorable part of your life in that place, just to demonstrate rights and spite them with being forced to host the ceremony?  Well okay, it does sound rather like what Christians have historically done to Pagan sites...  So it's not impossible, if you assume that gays with rights would somehow adopt an ideology that makes them act like much earlier Christians (with armies).  But anyway.  I can follow the 'running a public hospitality service, means you must do business with the whole public' argument. 

Although, it does worry me a little how many people that I've met who admit that they voted for Obama because he was black.  I think MLK Jr. would be ashamed to see people voting purely on color of skin, regardless of which skin color that is.

There is a lot more identity play going on, I imagine, across some of the same communities you may have in mind, and perhaps some other communities.  If Obama did not get to Harvard Law, if he were not a good public speaker, if he were not apparently straight and visibly married, if he were a "big, scary" Black man rather than a thin and clean-cut one...  Perhaps even, if he did not love basketball, or if his background was less international, what if his family had no White parenting... 

     I think we could skip around various communities where he has drawn support and start eliminating people.  Although we might find quite a few who voted on issues.  Is all this really unique to Obama?  Or is the question more which identities he drew and whether those are new or "useful" ones?  Not sure I quite follow this.     

[Oniya]

Can you please give an example of a time when it would be necessary to force someone to give evidence even when they don't want to?

A man robs a store.  He tells someone else where he's hidden the money, but other than that, there's no way to pin the crime on him.  The person he told doesn't want to testify for whatever reason (it puts them into a bad situation of some sort).  The state can subpoena them.  Alternatively, someone might have alibi evidence for the accused, but doesn't want to testify ('He couldn't have murdered that person, he was tied up in a latex body suit with a ball gag in his mouth at the time.')  The defense can subpoena them.

The existence of privilege comes about because certain relationships are built on trust.  You trust that what you tell your priest-confessor is between you and your Deity.  You trust that the person you have pledged 'forsaking all others, till death do us part' (or whatever) won't betray you.  You trust that your therapist won't tell anyone that you still carry a blue blanket at the age of 36.  Once that trust is broken, the relationship can't be maintained.  The legal system has determined that these specific relationships are worth protecting to the point that they over-ride the ability of either side to subpoena.  (Actually, they can subpoena, but the witness can claim '____ privilege', and there's nothing that the attorney can really do about it, so they usually don't bother.)

[AndyZ]

     Perhaps as something of a little salve to these parts...  ...and...  ...
     I think the following is an interesting read and it touches on some things the administration has done or not done at less publicized agency levels...  Although I haven't picked over it, and I might not agree with all the arguments and conclusions. 
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/what-straight-allies-need-to-understand-about-gay-marriage-and-states-rights/257111/

Appreciated; I'll read it over in detail later.

    I'm not sure the distinction between "hosting" and "performing" is clear to everyone who reads that.  If you read it quickly, it sounds like the churches might be forced to actually officiate same-sex marriage services.  There is a significant possible slippage in the way we use the word "host" -- It could have either of those meanings.  This rather makes me think the article itself may have been written more as an axe grinding exercise, and less as clear and full reporting of the situation.

     Granted, churches might consider their space to be something where only events they approve of should take place, but I have to agree with the counterargument.  If they are operating in a role that qualifies them as a public hospitality business, then they cannot deny service to whole categories of people any more than other businesses.  Thus the analogy presented in the article you cite:  Now, I don't know if there are say, spas or bed and breakfasts that could be allowed to close their doors to certain types of people.  If there are, then it might be interesting to explore whether there is any real difference. 

     Honestly, I sort of wonder how many would wish to be married in a church where the clergy are fundamentally opposed to their relationships?  Pay real money and have a memorable part of your life in that place, just to demonstrate rights and spite them with being forced to host the ceremony?  Well okay, it does sound rather like what Christians have historically done to Pagan sites...  So it's not impossible, if you assume that gays with rights would somehow adopt an ideology that makes them act like much earlier Christians (with armies).  But anyway.  I can follow the 'running a public hospitality service, means you must do business with the whole public' argument. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glitter_bombing

Regardless of any number of other factors, there are always people out there who will be dicks and do things just to upset people who hold different views.  Although I accept freedom of speech and don't want to shut down discussion, the claim that only one side of any argument has to be guarded is not credible to me.

Getting into the whole "public" argument will take significantly more time and effort, as well as potentially derailing the thread.  I'm really not a fan of the whole "you have to follow X or else we take away your privileges" deal.

Let's create the extreme example of the Church of Stan, which only allows people named Stan, and everyone else isn't ever allowed in.  Now, it's idiotic, sure, but would I want them to either lose their charity status or be forced to have other members?

Just in case this example is either too extreme or there actually is a Church of Stan (in which case I apologize), it's not difficult to extend this question to pagan rites which are only for females and believe that (if memory serves, and apologies if I get it wrong) that men are forces of destruction and their presence desecrates particular areas.  But, I prefer crazy examples, since I feel like I'm probably butchering this.

     There is a lot more identity play going on, I imagine, across some of the same communities you may have in mind, and perhaps some other communities.  If Obama did not get to Harvard Law, if he were not a good public speaker, if he were not apparently straight and visibly married, if he were a "big, scary" Black man rather than a thin and clean-cut one...  Perhaps even, if he did not love basketball, or if his background was less international, what if his family had no White parenting... 

     I think we could skip around various communities where he has drawn support and start eliminating people.  Although we might find quite a few who voted on issues.  Is all this really unique to Obama?  Or is the question more which identities he drew and whether those are new or "useful" ones?  Not sure I quite follow this.     

That was a jab at anyone who considers the color of the skin more important than the content of character.  I wasn't saying Obama was at fault there so much as the people who voted for him.

The way I see it, you're just as much a bigot for despising (or adoring) a white person as you are a non-white person, as much for straight as for gay, as much for a woman as for a man, as much for a fundamentalist as for an atheist, and so on.

I could argue about people's proclamations that there's finally a non-white in the White House and that maybe he pushed for that, but that's a stretch.

A man robs a store.  He tells someone else where he's hidden the money, but other than that, there's no way to pin the crime on him.  The person he told doesn't want to testify for whatever reason (it puts them into a bad situation of some sort).  The state can subpoena them.  Alternatively, someone might have alibi evidence for the accused, but doesn't want to testify ('He couldn't have murdered that person, he was tied up in a latex body suit with a ball gag in his mouth at the time.')  The defense can subpoena them.

The existence of privilege comes about because certain relationships are built on trust.  You trust that what you tell your priest-confessor is between you and your Deity.  You trust that the person you have pledged 'forsaking all others, till death do us part' (or whatever) won't betray you.  You trust that your therapist won't tell anyone that you still carry a blue blanket at the age of 36.  Once that trust is broken, the relationship can't be maintained.  The legal system has determined that these specific relationships are worth protecting to the point that they over-ride the ability of either side to subpoena.  (Actually, they can subpoena, but the witness can claim '____ privilege', and there's nothing that the attorney can really do about it, so they usually don't bother.)

Thank you.  I think I have a little better perspective.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.  Now, I absolutely don't want priests, therapists and so on to be commanded by law to testify.  The obvious result is that the state would command information, and people would stop being honest with priests and therapists, with an obvious downward spiral.

It's more about, do I want the state to be able to demand testimony at all?  If so, under what circumstances?  Under what circumstances should it be blocked as well?

Let's put down the example that a prostitute is with a man during the time that he's accused of murdering someone.  She wouldn't want to come forward because she doesn't want to admit what she was doing, risking both loss of face and conviction of solicitation.  Should she be forced to?

I mean, I kind of want to say that she should, but I don't know if I want to go down that road.  If you can force a stranger who doesn't want to come forward voluntarily, who can't you force?  Does it make sense to give privilege to a spouse but not a lifelong friend?

This is probably something that should be taken to a whole other discussion.

[Oniya]

Thank you.  I think I have a little better perspective.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.  Now, I absolutely don't want priests, therapists and so on to be commanded by law to testify.  The obvious result is that the state would command information, and people would stop being honest with priests and therapists, with an obvious downward spiral.

It's more about, do I want the state to be able to demand testimony at all?  If so, under what circumstances?  Under what circumstances should it be blocked as well?

I'm glad I was able to help - unfortunately, I probably couldn't take it any further without an actual legal ethics course.  My legal experience is about 11 years of actively listening to Vinnie Politan (and a few others).  *smiles sheepishly* 

[AndyZ]

I still feel as though I have a better idea on the matter, though, and I appreciate it. ^_^

[rick957]

@ kylie

Thanks for the link -- the article made compelling arguments for other factors besides population distribution that help to account for the seeming discrepancy.  Also it's nice to see that I wasn't the only person to note the discrepancy, seeming or not.

[kylie]

Regardless of any number of other factors, there are always people out there who will be dicks and do things just to upset people who hold different views.  I accept freedom of speech and don't want to shut down discussion, the claim that only one side of any argument has to be guarded is not credible to me.

I don't deny some people are happy to cross symbolic (or sometimes legal) lines just to rub it in.  I'm feeling skeptical that we would agree about the impact or social effects of it .  Once you say some group "will be dicks," Unless I absolutely detest the same groups today (and often, I also need to believe I probably detest them for the same reasons as I think you do!)...  Short of that, I pretty much get the impression I shouldn't bother debating that particular line with you.  I usually wouldn't use that terminology and it leads me to suspect you're pretty vehement already.  Probable waste of energy and pleasant atmosphere for me to go on.

Getting into the whole "public" argument will take significantly more time and effort, as well as potentially derailing the thread.  I'm really not a fan of the whole "you have to follow X or else we take away your privileges" deal.

You're right, that would be another thread.  Basically, I'll be more curious about this after rearranging wealth distribution, population density, and infrastructure.

Let's create the extreme example of the Church of Stan, which only allows people named Stan, and everyone else isn't ever allowed in.  Now, it's idiotic, sure, but would I want them to either lose their charity status or be forced to have other members?  Just in case this example is either too extreme or there actually is a Church of Stan (in which case I apologize),

Wags finger.  Really, you could have just Googled?  http://www.facebook.com/ChurchoStan   
And if you keep googling...  It sounds like maybe they've grown fourfold since 2008.  From 8 people to 35 or more, if these sites line up?  ;D

That was a jab at anyone who considers the color of the skin more important than the content of character.  I wasn't saying Obama was at fault there so much as the people who voted for him.The way I see it, you're just as much a bigot for despising (or adoring) a white person as you are a non-white person, as much for straight as for gay, as much for a woman as for a man, as much for a fundamentalist as for an atheist, and so on.

I don't like to play with the word "bigot" very much since 1) I think it's become too charged to exchange without insulting someone out of the gate and for me, worse: 2) perhaps partly because I avoid it -- but I don't know its history in the language, and I'm not sure I understand the outcomes. 

     Trying to humor you, though:  At a glance, "bigot" can be defined as a claim about intolerance.  So... It's not clear to me that not "adoring" someone is equivalent to not tolerating them as a presence or political entity. 

     There are too many possibilities in each word.  I don't deny those sometimes can line up if you want to focus there.  But you're likely missing a whole set of ideas that historically marginalized people think of (especially as political activist groups) when they use the same word.  It's even possible you are pointing to a few issues with the identity lines being too rigid.  I like to do that too, somewhat.  I'm just not confident that the "tolerance" you are suggesting here, is the same as the "tolerance" requested by oh, the voting blocs (if you like) that you're criticizing.
 
     I thought the thread was starting out as something about gay rights and Obama, but I feel you're careening around and I've lost any central question.  Plus it's getting to bedtime.  So I'll stop there.

[AndyZ]

You're right, I've gotten exceptionally off topic.  Sorry.

[LunarSage]

Whether it was said with ulterior motives or not, I think it's still pretty groundbreaking as no president in history has ever had the balls to say it before now.  I think it's a step in the right direction.  How big that step is... well, that's debatable.