Obama Gambles On Gay Marriage - Page 2

**Malorn** · 2012-05-11, 10:52 AM

Meh.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-11, 11:08 AM

That's how it sounds, when someone tells you that you can't enjoy the same rights they do. Whether they couch it in terms like "I'm just defending traditional marriage" or not.

Opposing interracial marriage was racism, and opposing same-sex marriage is bigotry. The anti-interracial crowd thought they were nobly defending traditional values as well, and history has not exactly been kind to them. And it all boils down to one side believing, in its heart of hearts, that the other isn't quite as human and they are.

Now, that being said, you're right. I don't think anyone knows what Romney's position is. I don't think even he does. I think his position is "Tell me what you want to hear. I'll say it if you vote for me."

**Malorn** · 2012-05-11, 02:35 PM

Meh.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-11, 03:05 PM

I think this is a special case because it's about civil liberties; something that is protected on a federal level. New Hampshire, for example, can't vote to prohibit black people from voting. The federal government won't allow it. States have the right to set laws, but within boundaries. Otherwise they'd all just be little countries that are just allied to each other.

It's important for the federal government to step in when local governments fail to adequately protect or serve their citizens. In this case, we're talking about the civil liberties and rights of american citizens who are being forbidden from things that the majority of the rest of us are free to both enjoy and abuse.

I agree that states should be allowed to set laws for themselves, but some things really should be protected federally, and civil liberties is definitely one of them. It's important to keep certain states from making un-american or unconstitutional decisions.

Blah, this needs it's own thread, this is getting a bit off topic.

I know what Romney's website says. I also know that in 1994 he claimed he'd be better than Ted Kennedy on Gay Rights. The guy says what he needs to say, when he needs to say it, for very calculated gains. I mean it when I say that not only do we not know what he truly thinks, I don't think he does either. He's so deep in the machine that it's entirely possible he's just a mish-mash of talking points.

Not saying this doesn't apply to Obama. I've personally always thought he was an atheist and just says all that god stuff to throw us off the scent and stay president. I'm not sure which I'd prefer; if he was a liar, or really that religious. I'll never know, of course. I wonder if he does.

Sirisian · 2012-05-11, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

http://politi.co/ILbRf3

(article has citations for all the Obama quotes over the years)

Here's another good one.

Figment · 2012-05-11, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I would prefer he defer to the states to decide their own path. I don't see why the federal government needs to step in (on either side of the issue). If the people of a state wish to allow or ban it - so be it. It is their decision. I don't see why we need yet more federal government dictation of what people can or can't do.

Aside from scale, what's the difference between a state and a federal government determining who's allowed to marry who?

Are you saying people in seperate states aren't equal so those in states with oppressive laws just have to suffer the consequences of not having the same rights as others in other states?

Also why is a majority in a state different from a majority nationaly?

I find it rather hypocritical, tbh. Basically you're saying you don't trust democracy, as from what I gathered earlier, one of your arguments is that it keeps a majority somewhere from dominating a local majority elsewhere. Regardless, the individual suffers somewhere.

If Romney wants to make it a constitutional thing, then that is a restriction of human rights and individual rights nationally on the basis of making a number of narrowminded voter-folks happy.

If you're so afraid of majority power, then why would you ever be in favour of a state election system that guarantees a bipartisan and therefore a national majority (individual rights infringing) system?

The current federal republic system just makes no sense as it creates dictatorships by the few leading majorities. You have no choices but two who you might not be behind. How could your leaders possibly represent you?

**Malorn** · 2012-05-11, 05:14 PM

Meh.

CutterJohn · 2012-05-11, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I would prefer he defer to the states to decide their own path. I don't see why the federal government needs to step in (on either side of the issue). If the people of a state wish to allow or ban it - so be it. It is their decision. I don't see why we need yet more federal government dictation of what people can or can't do.

This is why many southern democrats in the 50s/60s became southern republicans, because they hoped the republicans more historically 'states rights' mantle would have allowed them to continue their discrimination of minorities.

Bigotry is not a states rights issue, and these laws are the absolute definition of bigotry.

Baneblade · 2012-05-11, 11:34 PM

The thing is, everyone has the exact same rights on this issue already. Any man can marry any woman and visa versa. I'm all for universal marriage, I just don't like it when Gay Tony says he has less rights than Straight Jack... because in actuality, he doesn't.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-11, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

The thing is, everyone has the exact same rights on this issue already. Any man can marry any woman and visa versa. I'm all for universal marriage, I just don't like it when Gay Tony says he has less rights than Straight Jack... because in actuality, he doesn't.

Please explain now they have the same rights, if 'Gay Tony', to use your example, cannot marry his male partner whereas 'Straight Jack' can marry his female partner?

Baneblade · 2012-05-12, 12:25 AM

Neither Gay Tony nor Straight Jack can marry a man, but both can marry a woman. Also known as the same right.

Or are you just being a troll?

CutterJohn · 2012-05-12, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

The thing is, everyone has the exact same rights on this issue already. Any man can marry any woman and visa versa. I'm all for universal marriage, I just don't like it when Gay Tony says he has less rights than Straight Jack... because in actuality, he doesn't.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

The right they want is not to get married. The right they want is to get married to the person of their choice.

Anyone who is against gay marriage, please answer this: What, specifically, is the problem? What are you worried would happen if it were legalized?

I'm truly baffled. People were up in arms about it here in Iowa. 3 years later, and... Literally nothing has changed. A few people are happier, and a few people are pissed that those people can be happy. We haven't been smote by god, the queers aren't running around fucking people in the ass willy nilly.. Its had zero effect on the day to day life of the citizens, nor on the day to day operations of the government. None whatsoever. Despite the complete non issue its turned out to be, I'm sure it will be an heated topic of debate for the next state election cycle. So please tell me what your specific issues with it are. I'm genuinely curious what effects it could have that are so deleterious that it must be banned.

Figment · 2012-05-12, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Neither Gay Tony nor Straight Jack can marry a man, but both can marry a woman. Also known as the same right.

Or are you just being a troll?

Sobekeus, the one trolling here is you as you know damn well what is meant.

Baneblade · 2012-05-12, 12:27 PM

Call it what it is, it isn't equal rights, it is more rights. Subtle but important difference, especially from the opposition's point of view.

Baneblade · 2012-05-12, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by elfailo

The right to marry someone of the opposite sex is not a right to those who are attracted to the same sex. How could you miss something so obvious?

Rights are rights, whether you use them or not. The people opposed to same sex marriage are opposed to it because they don't know what it means for them... or they have mistaken ideas about it due to various things.

Besides, if it goes through, then heterosexuals also get *more* rights, as they'd be allowed to marry someone of the same sex too. This is getting absurd now.

I understand that, and it has always been absurd to oppose civil rights equilibrium.