Thank you, Mr. President

[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. ^_^