Why is Obama against gay marriage?

nothinghead

I've wondered this for some time. Obama supporting gay Civil Unions with all the benefits of marriage, but not gay marriage itself, is one of the ultimate ironies of the election.

Yes, America is ready to back a black President--one who firmly believes in "separate but equal" institutions for minority populations.

melodious

sponger wrote:

Marriage is a joke. It's pathetic to see people trying to protect its "traditional" meaning.

marriage is not a joke...
no way even near...

look at geese...they have life partners and if their partner dies, it is said, the survivor will die too..

marriage is the highest sacrament between man and woman. One reason marriage is taken for granted is that people have not initiated enough preparation to enter the temple...

and because of this rush for a bond, it is not taken in the context it is meant to be.

OffHeGoes29

CHANGEinWAVES wrote:

I oppose marriage in general, gay or straight.

For the first time ever, I agree with you.

jeffbr

nothinghead wrote:

Yes, America is ready to back a black President--one who firmly believes in "separate but equal" institutions for minority populations.

Well said.

callen

melodious wrote:

marriage is not a joke...
no way even near...

look at geese...they have life partners and if their partner dies, it is said, the survivor will die too..

marriage is the highest sacrament between man and woman. One reason marriage is taken for granted is that people have not initiated enough preparation to enter the temple...

and because of this rush for a bond, it is not taken in the context it is meant to be.

Marriage is a joke, though ...having two individuals (same sex or not) being in a committed mutually satisfying relationship to share in ones journey is not. Having made up rules for engagement is a joke...not needed.

To the thread, Obama's saying what he needs to say to get elected on the subject...but be willing to guess he really doesn't care who schtoops who??

dharma69

I don't see anything wrong with leaving "marriage" alone; personally I think it's the best thing to do. Progress and progression is all well and good but not everything that we were built on needs to be revised and re-written just to accomodate everyone who "decides" to be different.

Accomodations should be made to include and that's what civil unions do. Just because so many people fuck up in marriage doesn't mean that marriage isn't still worthy of the honor that it was meant to own. It belongs on a pedestal the same as having a child does.

melodious

+ =

thank you...I believe Obama does believe in marriage..

marriage is phenomenal...

Gonzo1977

The man is human for Christ's sake.
Just because I'm voting for the guy doesnt' mean that I'm 100% across the board in line with everything he believes in. I believe in alot of what he says and agree with him on a vast majority of issues; that's why he's getting my vote.

But he's by no means Perfect.

meistereder

dharma69 wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with leaving "marriage" alone; personally I think it's the best thing to do. Progress and progression is all well and good but not everything that we were built on needs to be revised and re-written just to accomodate everyone who "decides" to be different.

Accomodations should be made to include and that's what civil unions do. Just because so many people fuck up in marriage doesn't mean that marriage isn't still worthy of the honor that it was meant to own. It belongs on a pedestal the same as having a child does.

Think of it this way -- black people didn't used to have the legal right to marry either. The institution of marriage is not changing. It's just that as times change, we become more accepting as to who we let have these freedoms that only some of us used to have.

Also, you may be interested to learn about the history of marriage. It's based mostly in property rights, and the concept of marriage unifying a romantic relationship is a pretty recent one. Last couple hundred years or so.

digster

Gonzo1977 wrote:

The man is human for Christ's sake.
Just because I'm voting for the guy doesnt' mean that I'm 100% across the board in line with everything he believes in. I believe in alot of what he says and agree with him on a vast majority of issues; that's why he's getting my vote.

But he's by no means Perfect.

I think that's just the result of increased partisanship on both sides of the debate, and with presidential political campaigns in general. It happens here all the time; I've been questioned about many different Obama positions with the automatic assumption being that I agree with every single one of the policy positions he champions. I don't know if it's always been like that, but it seems like it's increased in the past ten years.

dharma69

meistereder wrote:

Think of it this way -- black people didn't used to have the legal right to marry either. The institution of marriage is not changing. It's just that as times change, we become more accepting as to who we let have these freedoms that only some of us used to have.

Also, you may be interested to learn about the history of marriage. It's based mostly in property rights, and the concept of marriage unifying a romantic relationship is a pretty recent one. Last couple hundred years or so.

I don't really have to think of it "that way"...since I'm black. Blacks not having the legal right to marry was a man-made restriction considering that they, too, were property at a time.

And granting civil unions and all of the basic rights that come with a legal union is pretty damned accepting. Whose world is going to collapse because they had a "civil union" ceremony instead of a "marriage" ceremony?

Do I sound contradictory? Sorry, can't help that because I don't see this issue as an issue of discrimination; more an issue of "I want what I want and demand that you accept it." Gay and straight have to live here as well as those who follow the bible and those who do not. This country is overwhelming faith-based and that's not a bad thing.

digster

dharma69 wrote:

Whose world is going to collapse because they had a "civil union" ceremony instead of a "marriage" ceremony?

Well, that question could be directed right back at you; whose world is going to collapse because they had a "marriage" ceremony instead of a "civil union" ceremony? And I think the answer to your question is that the institution and spiritual meaning of marriage is desired by many people, both gay and straight. Why differentiate?

jeffbr

The government should not be in the marriage business. The government should only recognize civil unions - hetero or homo. If a couple then wants to go to their church and get married, that is fine, but the gov't shouldn't care one way or the other.

digster

jeffbr wrote:

The government should not be in the marriage business. The government should only recognize civil unions - hetero or homo. If a couple then wants to go to their church and get married, that is fine, but the gov't shouldn't care one way or the other.

I can understand the states' rights argument very much, although I'm not sure I entirely agree. The federal amendment ban argument, on the other hand, is hypocritical horsecrap, in my personal opinion.

EDIT: That being said, I think it'd be a practical impossibility to remove the states' recognizing marriage. There's too much invested in it already. But I'd agree to that before I'd agree to marriage recognition only for heterosexual couples. It should be all or nothing.

jimed14

jeffbr wrote:

The government should not be in the marriage business. The government should only recognize civil unions - hetero or homo. If a couple then wants to go to their church and get married, that is fine, but the gov't shouldn't care one way or the other.

agree ... and thus, California's Prop 8 should be voted against.

as, it would amend the state constitution to ONLY recognize marraige between a man and a woman.

VOTE NO ON 8!

jeffbr

jimed14 wrote:

agree ... and thus, California's Prop 8 should be voted against.

as, it would amend the state constitution to ONLY recognize marraige between a man and a woman.

VOTE NO ON 8!

If I lived in California, I'd definitely be voting NO ON 8! Good luck down there.

meistereder

For those of you who may not know, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution is the reason why one state has to recognize and give benefits to people who got married in another state. So Nevada has to recognize the marriage of a couple who got married in CA, and vise versa.

This is why the states rights issue is not an end result. If CA permits gay marriages, the implications are nationwide.

digster

meistereder wrote:

For those of you who may not know, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution is the reason why one state has to recognize and give benefits to people who got married in another state. So Nevada has to recognize the marriage of a couple who got married in CA, and vise versa.

This is why the states rights issue is not an end result. If CA permits gay marriages, the implications are nationwide.

Yes, good point. And the state governments would not be able to make any law that rejects gay marriages from other states, for in the case that the federal law and state law contradict, the former overrules the latter.

meistereder

dharma69 wrote:

I don't really have to think of it "that way"...since I'm black. Blacks not having the legal right to marry was a man-made restriction considering that they, too, were property at a time.

And granting civil unions and all of the basic rights that come with a legal union is pretty damned accepting. Whose world is going to collapse because they had a "civil union" ceremony instead of a "marriage" ceremony?

Do I sound contradictory? Sorry, can't help that because I don't see this issue as an issue of discrimination; more an issue of "I want what I want and demand that you accept it." Gay and straight have to live here as well as those who follow the bible and those who do not. This country is overwhelming faith-based and that's not a bad thing.

I missed your response earlier. You know, I am interested in your response. I do believe this is an issue of discrimination. I am straight and white, for the record, but I don't think that matters here. The civil union laws to me are a pretty clear cut example of separate but equal, and that violates the 14th amendment. I just don't think it's going to hold up.

Practically speaking, who wins this election will have a huge impact on this issue because if McCain appoints a couple of Scalias, the court will side with the conservatives who say man and woman and that's it. As is, I think the court sides with CA, but we will see.

dharma69

meistereder wrote:

I missed your response earlier. You know, I am interested in your response. I do believe this is an issue of discrimination. I am straight and white, for the record, but I don't think that matters here. The civil union laws to me are a pretty clear cut example of separate but equal, and that violates the 14th amendment. I just don't think it's going to hold up.

Practically speaking, who wins this election will have a huge impact on this issue because if McCain appoints a couple of Scalias, the court will side with the conservatives who say man and woman and that's it. As is, I think the court sides with CA, but we will see.

I did say contradictory, didn't I?

You would think that leaving it up to the individual states instead of the federal gov't would be the logical and responsible thing to do, but that's not foolproof either. But also, in my head, I see you start changing something like the definition of marriage and all else follows; why stop there? Change everything. Bigamists want to be able to legalize their marriages as well, so let them.

But that's just me.