Monday, May 7, 2012
On the President's "Evolving" View Relative to Gay-Marriage
What an absolute load of bullshit. "Evolving". You're either for gay-marriage or you're against it. I'm for it. And I would fight for it even if it was before an election (i.e., I wouldn't give a rat's ass as to what the people in Virginia, Indiana, North Carolina, and the other swing states thought about it), for Christ. It's a little something called leadership, people - and not of the evolving caliber, either. Evolving - LOL!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
The US doesn't have leaders, we have representatives. Obama can do more for the gay community if he is elected to a second term. I guess you'd (possibly) throw the election away just to show you have character?
wd, Finally we agree...
"The US doesn't have leaders..."
Yup, on that we can agree. Nothing like wandering in the desert clueless for forty years or so to make a nation strong and resilient.
Lets see...
Bush 8 years
Obama 4 years potentially 8
Romney (Obama Light) maybe the next 4
Oh what the hell difference does it make? Ether way we likely have 28 more years at least stumbling about trying to get our bearings.
Looks like I may not see the day it happens.
Oh well.
Oh, that's right this post is about gay marriage. Sorry Will.
Well I am all for same sex unions being legal nationwide. With all the rights (legal and otherwise), privileges, obligations,tax benefits, etc. as heterosexual unions enjoy.
Just don't call it marriage as words have meanings and marriage has been throughout recorded history, until just very recently the union of a man and a women.
In other words don't redefine a concept just to appease a special interest group or small minority.
Sorry Will, just can't buy the redefining of a concept or the reasons that surround this issue.
And I'm an atheist wd so don't even go were I suspect you're headed.
The US has leaders (rulers, government) and they are not "us. Though we can nudge them through elections. Representatives are merely a type of leader. But in the end they are all rulers.
Rational gets it. We do have ruling elites, after all. Whether or not they are good "leaders" and take leadership is another matter altogether.
As for Obama, remember campaigned in OPPOSITION to gay marriage. I argued with some liberals about this, who insisted that Obama didn't oppose gay marriage because he was a homophobe, but for political reasons and just to get elected. Well, that reveals other major problems doesn't it?
So what you're saying, dmarks, is that elections are the problem and that we need to get rid of them? And then who would run government? The wealthy elites that you always are insisting should be in charge?
And I don't know what "Rational" is talking about... he "suspects" I'm headed somewhere, but I think he's wrong about where that is. Obviously he's in favor of "separate but equal". Even though that didn't work out so well the last time we tried it. Those to whom it was applied didn't buy it.
"I am in favor of gay-marriage and I will do everything in my power to advance it." He can't say that, wd (and our elected representatives can't show leadership?)? He doesn't have the cajones to say it?
I'm OK with civil unions, Les. Of course the respective couples and religious institutions can then be free to call it whatever they want and, so, it kind of is a moot point.
In this country we have two types of marriage, legal marriage and religion marriage. Religion marriage carries no legal obligations or authority, only religious consequences. Churches can decide who they want to marry.
Legal marriage is marriage sanctioned by the state and is a legal union and legal contract. As such, it should carry no religious obligations and religious restrictions, and should be open to any couple who is legally able to enter into a contract.
The state should marry everyone, but let churches marry whoever they want to.
And call it civil union, as that is what it is then Jerry.
Why not call a religion marriage a religious union?
"In other words don't redefine a concept just to appease a special interest group or small minority."
I'm curious as to how a same sex couple would answer the question, "Are you married?"
Would you expect them to say, "No, we're civil unioned?"
I'm reminded of an old rock and roll song by the Dixie Cups, "Going to the Chapel and We're Gonna Get Married." Or that wonderful tune from My Fair Lady.
I can't imagine same-sex couples having to change the lyrics to "Going to the Chapel and I'm Gonna Get Civil-Unioned," or "I'm Getting Civil-Unioned in the Morning! Ding-dong the bells are gonna chime!"
It's foolish.
It's ALL marriage. There are many definitions for marriage, one of which includes this:
"...the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple,"
That definition doesn't "redefine" marriage, it allows for the inclusion of same-sex couples to be considered "married."
What's the objection, except a religious one? We don't base our civil laws on people's religion.
For all the harping about what's wrong with our politics -- and no, it's not that the right is too extreme -- I think this is the best example. The problem with politics is that the people we elect just want to get re-elected.
We can't get term limits in because our representatives won't pass them. They get to vote their own pay raises. Each party secures its incumbents every ten years through redistricting. And they'll say whatever they can to get re-elected.
Then there's the hypocrisy of the media claiming Romney is anti-gay rights while Obama holds the same positions.
I find it interesting that the only term limit we have in the federal government is for president. Although the voters do have term limit powers in the voting booth, incumbents have a definite advantage.
Mitt Romney, as is his habit, has flip-flopped so many times on gay rights that it's impossible to know what he really believes.
Example in this report from 5 months ago, Dec. 2011:
"Mitt Romney's position on gay rights doesn't quite lend itself to a bumper sticker. Depending on whom you ask, it is either too thoughtful and nuanced, or too inconsistent and politically expedient. Either way, it's definitely got the GOP presidential candidate on the defensive.
There was a reminder of that Monday when Mitt Romney was forced to defend his opposition to gay marriage during a restaurant encounter with a grizzled Vietnam veteran named Bob Garon, who happened to be gay.
"The story on same-sex marriage is that I have the same position on that I had when I ran from the very beginning," Romney said in an interview last month with the Nashua Telegraph in New Hampshire.
"I'm in favor of traditional marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage. At the same time, I don't believe in discriminating in employment or opportunity for gay individuals. So I favor gay rights; I do not favor same-sex marriage. That has been my position all along."
Always Opposed Gay Marriage
The second part of his statement is clear: Romney does not favor gay marriage. He supports the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that bars federal recognition of gay marriage, as well as a constitutional amendment to do the same.
The second part of his statement is clear: Romney does not favor gay marriage. He supports the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that bars federal recognition of gay marriage, as well as a constitutional amendment to do the same.
As governor of Massachusetts, Romney did everything he could to stop gay marriage there after the state's high court allowed it.
Romney responded to the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision by vowing to keep the state from becoming, as he put it, "the Las Vegas of gay marriage." At the time, Romney stated: "I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. ... Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman."
But back during his first political run in 1994, Romney aggressively courted gay voters, promising to do more for "full equality" for gays and lesbians than his Massachusetts opponent, Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Today, Romney denies any inconsistency."
Has he flipped again since this report in December? If he has and is suddenly embracing marriage for consenting adults, hetero and non-hetero, then that's another HUGE flip-flop.
Mr. Obama has been consistent in his stance--civil unions but "evolving" on marriage--[which I do not agree with, I'm for civil rights for all citizens and for calling a union between two people who love each other, whether it's man and man, woman and woman, or man and woman, marriage].
As the Words Turns the Wheels Spin.
I have an idea, call same sex and heterosexual unions whatever trips the individual(s) involved trigger.
Changing the definition of well defied terms and concepts to suit special interests or particular minorities is just crazy Shaw.
But in this insane age nothing surprises me anymore.
RN, I did not change the meaning of the word "marriage."
You obviously didn't read my comment.
The people who, for a living, define what words mean, lexicographers, have definitively stated that marriage ALSO MEANS:
"...the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple,"
Words have more than one meaning, and marriage can also mean exactly what is stated above.
No one has changed anything, least of all me.
You surprise me when you apparently don't understand this.
Shaw, I am not talking about you personally. Not at all.
The term and concept of marriage is the union of one man and one women. A union in which offspring can and are produced as a result of the marriage. I am fully aware of the religious connection and understand it.
I have thought about this for many a day, from many different angles. I support civil unions between gays and lesbians, they are entitled to the same legal rights as heterosexuals and they deserve to live a happy and complete life with each other.
My views are well known and the criticism has been plentiful from the right and the left. I accept that criticism. In in no way affects my views nor will cause me to speak otherwise.
To reiterate, I am not even a religious individual. I am however an individual.
Yes Shaw you are right. Up can be Down and Down can be up. We see it every day, now don't we?
RN,
I know you know this, but offsprings are not produced by marriage. I don't even know why you would say such a thing. Obviously, you did not state what you really meant.
Jerry, you are correct. A poorly worded statement.
Offspring are often a consequence of the union (marriage) of a man and women. Such consequence is not possible in a same sex marriages, other than through adoption. Which is a topic for another day perhaps.
"Such consequence is not possible in a same sex marriages,"
Tell that to Mary Cheney.
She is in a same-sex marriage and has been pregnant with two children. Of course she was inseminated with some male donor's sperm, but the ova were hers.
Hetero couples employ the same method when the male husband cannot produce viable sperm.
Point made, changes not a thing. Redefine at will. Being comfortable in ones own skin is quite satisfying.
WD asked: "So what you're saying, dmarks, is that elections are the problem and that we need to get rid of them? And then who would run government? The wealthy elites that you always are insisting should be in charge?"
Of course not. Everyone can see I was not saying or implying anything of the sort. I was just criticizing the idea of a candidate lying to get elected.
"The wealthy elites that you always are insisting should be in charge?""
Find one comment where I insisted this. Ever. You won't. Expect crickets.
However, the elites who rule do happen to be wealthy (they give themselves big pay raises). And I want these handouts cut, actually.
dmarks: Expect crickets
I think dmarks adds this to the end of almost every fricking comment in the hope that I will miss his response (because I've moved on) and he'll be "vindicated" when I don't respond.
As for you wanting the wealthy elites to rule, you explicitly deny it, but it is what would result (and has resulted) when the policies you favor are implemented.
For instance, free trade generates enormous profits for the wealthy elites (at the expense of America workers and the American economy). They then use this money to buy our elected officials... therefore you advocating for free trade is the same as you advocating to increase the power of the wealthy elites.
In anticipation of dmarks not responding I declare myself the winner of this argument.
Post a Comment