General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBREAKING: Obama endorses STATES RIGHTS
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05/obama-endorses-marriage-equality-federalism"A president endorsing, even as a "personal position," marriage equality for gays and lesbians is, as Vice President Joe Biden once said, a big fucking deal. But Obama has endorsed marriage equality federalismnot the notion that marriage for gays and lesbians is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution that can never be taken away. Obama has adopted the same position that Vice President Dick Cheney did in 2004, when Cheney said he believed in marriage equality but that the states should be allowed to decide by a show of hands, as North Carolina did Tuesday, whether gays and lesbians have the same rights as everyone else."
The best breakdown so-far of Obama's position on marriage equality. Apparently, being as progressive as Dick Cheney is now something to celebrate.
I seem to remember some previous president's taking a states rights position when it comes to civil rights issues.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)in slavery and women wouldn't of had the vote. Majority shouldn't have that kind of power over the minority when it comes to civil rights.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)already with all but one (I think that's what Rachel said) voted against marriage equality.
Hey he got a banner fundraising day by saying he supports states rights because no one seemed to hear that part and only heard that he thinks equality is important, no mention of what if anything he would do about it, and instead a waffle to states rights. Good on MotherJones for going there.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)The purpose was to go on the historical record of stating that HE PERSONALLY believes in marriage equality. Don't over-think it.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)any where.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)I just want to get fucking married to the love of my life.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)would be done. My should we married couples have all the fun and fights in a marriage. Right?
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)believing in marriage equality. THAT is a big deal.
Can't find the DU Button for individual posts....This is a "BIG FUCKING DEAL"
Sheesh some people are never happy.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)What HE can do is endorse. If you're looking for legislation than start a movement, get it put up for a vote. Don't just sit home posting negativity on DU. BE THE CHANGE.
rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)when he doesn't just say it's personally ok with him if same sex couples get married
but that they have a constitutional RIGHT to do so.
FSogol
(45,484 posts)rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)The ONLY thing "good enough" is affirming those RIGHTS. Not "they should be able to" but if someone else decides they shouldn't (deferring to states rights) then that's pretty much OK too.
ProfessorGAC
(65,013 posts)So, like the prior poster said, file under "nothing is ever good enough".
rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)I can't help it if you don't understand the difference between "should be able to" and "have the constitutional right to".
I also can't help it if you don't understand the full implications of taking a states rights position on civil rights issues.
Here in NC, we now know exactly what it means.
ProfessorGAC
(65,013 posts)You seem to be the one who has lost focus.
GAC
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Which is working oh so well
TLM
(6,761 posts)For some, the only thing Obama can do right, is lose the election.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)The most pro-gay president in history.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)used to be a "statement of fact" too.
TLM
(6,761 posts)You may feel marriage is a civil right, but gay or straight, marriage is still a state level contract. And the issue will be resolved in the context of a 10th and 14th amendment argument and an article 4 argument, by the courts.
By pushing it to a states rights issue, it then only takes one state to affirm the rights of gays to marry, in order to constitutionally require all states to recognize it under the constitution. The same issue applied with interracial marriage only about 50 years ago. And the courts struck down the interracial marriage bans on that basis.
But I do understand that some want Obama to somehow wave his magic wand and give them their new pony overnight, and anything short of that means he hates gay people.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=667131
AFERs Ted Olson Supports Obamas Same-Sex Marriage Endorsement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002665147
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002668277
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,683 posts)1. By federal legislation regulating marriage. Right now marriage is, by default, controlled by individual states because there is no federal marriage legislation (especially since DOMA is not being enforced), and the Constitution leaves everything to the states that is not specifically regulated by Congress. But I do not see this Congress doing anything to change this situation any time soon. And if they did it wouldn't be anything good. One thing to think about: Right now there are a few states that do recognize same-sex marriage. If Congress - as it currently exists - were to start regulating marriage you can bet same-sex marriage would be outlawed everywhere. So maybe leaving the matter to the states for now isn't necessarily as bad as we think.
2. Or by challenging state laws banning same-sex marriage under the same theory used in Loving v. Virginia, which declared laws against interracial marriage to be an unconstitutional violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Unfortunately this Supreme Court would probably come up with some stupid, politically-motivated and disingenuous reasoning why Loving should not be considered precedent and the Fourteenth Amendment inapplicable to same-sex marriage.
So: For the time being maybe all that can be done is work on changing state laws - all politics is local, after all - and look to the future when a different Supreme Court might consider a constitutional challenge to state laws against same-sex marriage. This can't happen if the Supreme Court continues to be controlled by the likes of Roberts and Scalia. But if Obama is re-elected and can appoint more liberal justices there could be a chance in the foreseeable future.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)States generally have to recognize weddings performed in other states. DOMA makes an exception for same-sex weddings.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,683 posts)My point is that any federal legislation coming out of this Congress would almost certainly be bad. Under the circumstances, it may be better to leave marriage under the control of the states since at least a few states do permit same-sex marriage. In those states that do not, we work to get those laws overturned.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)"One case, in Connecticut, challenges the federal government's denial of marriage-related protections for federal Family Medical Leave Act benefits, federal laws for private pension plans and federal laws concerning state pension plans. In the other case in New york City, the federal government refused to recognize the marriage of two women and taxed the inheritance that one of the women left to the other as though the two were strangers. Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave her assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes."
One state refusing to recognize a gay-marriage which started with a wedding in another state isn't a DOJ issue at this time.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)If you want federal marriage legislation, then you have to deal with a thicket of issues other than same sex marriages.
Some states recognize common law marriage - no license, no bullshit, no nothing. Live together long enough and call yourself married and that's that.
Some states don't.
Some states allow first cousin marriages.
Some states don't.
States are all over the place on marriages involving minors.
If you think anyone is going to come up with one federal package that addresses all of those issues in a way that makes everyone happy, you are dreaming.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,683 posts)and one of many reasons why there is unlikely to be a uniform federal marriage statute any time soon. And if there were, most of us probably wouldn't like it, since the way Congress is now I can guarantee that same-sex marriage would be banned.
So to be busting on Obama for referencing "states' rights" is kind of bogus. Since there is no controlling federal statute regulating marriage, the Constitution delegates all that to the states. And that's where we are.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)emulatorloo
(44,120 posts)it is unconstitutional. Then I remember when Dick Cheney stepped up and supported the repeal of DOMA when he endorsed the "Respect for Marriage Act".
Dick Cheney certainly pushed hard for gay rights when he was in office. It astounds me how gay-friendly his policies were.
===
This Dick Cheney meme is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on DU.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)emulatorloo
(44,120 posts)Feb 23, 2011 12:39pm
President Obama Instructs Justice Department to Stop Defending Defense of Marriage Act calls Clinton-Signed Law Unconstitutional
President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which has since 1996 allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex partnerships legally recognized in other states.
<MORE AT LINK>
See also:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html
Obama backs bill to repeal Defense of Marriage Act
July 19, 2011
By David Nakamura,
The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.
White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books.
Feinsteins bill, called the Respect for Marriage Act, would uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights as others, according to Carney.
The Senate is scheduled to hold an initial hearing on Feinsteins proposal on Wednesday.
The policy was wrong then and it is wrong today, and I believe it should be repealed, Feinstein said Tuesday morning during remarks at the National Press Club.
Obamas decision came five months after his administration instructed U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to stop defending DOMA and represents a continuing evolution in Obamas views on same-sex marriage. In February, Holder said parts of DOMA were unconstitutional because of classifications based on sexual orientation.
<SNIP>
Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese hailed Obamas decision to back the congressional push.
We thank the President for his support of the Respect of Marriage Act, Solmonese said in a statement. By supporting this legislation, the President continues to demonstrate his commitment to ending federal discrimination against tens of thousands of lawfully married same-sex couples.
<MORE AT LINK>
--------
morningfog
(18,115 posts)No defending it it court is not the same as not enforcing it. See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002674005
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)But i might fight to get US a ruling majority of progressives in both houses AND a socially and economically progressive president too. You seem to have the roles reversed.
ProfessorGAC
(65,013 posts)It would appear you are the one confused, not the poster you accuse of being.
GAC
emulatorloo
(44,120 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)link?
emulatorloo
(44,120 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002670651
rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)I have no problem with people weighing the good & bad of the administration's accomplishments and positions. I have no problem if after doing so, they decide to throw their weight behind the administration.
I have a BIG problem with people calling things what they aren't. Obamas statement in no way is a "defense" of marriage equality. It is a statement of moral support. That's all well and good, but the attacks that are coming are NOT moral attacks. They are legal attacks. As a constitutional lawyer Obama knows this. He knows full well that what was on the ballot in NC (where I live and vote) was not "do you think it is OK for same sex couples to marry?". The question was basically "do you think same sex couples have an inalienable right to marry?". And based on Obama's statement essentially affirming the validity of Ammendment One, the simple answer is NO. There were no "Maybe", "Sometimes", or "If the states decide its OK" boxes on the ballot.
You can't selectively quote his position and conveniently ignore all the stuff about states rights to make this seem like more than it really is: a clever bit of triangulation in an election year. And it is working.
Prism
(5,815 posts)I think, legally, where this helps us is with the traditional weather vanes on the Supreme Court. When I look at thirty states, all the amendments out there, and think about picking them off one by one, we're looking at an effort that would stretch into decades. I don't think that's how this issue will go down. I think this is going to go down to the Supreme Court. By solidifying support for marriage equality's mainstream status on a national level, I think the President is creating more wiggle room for the Court.
I know we want him to go all the way and declare a constitutional right, but this announcement was more than I was expecting before the election, and I think we should embrace the situation on the ground. That being that the Court is probably going to do a Loving vs. Virginia at some point, and we need to lay down as many stones as possible to pave that way so it happens within the next five to ten years. A presidential endorsement is a pretty big stone.
rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)Getting the Dems to put legal same sex marriages in the platform is a big step too.
Prism
(5,815 posts)We need to make sure we're prepared for the convention fight. That's our next big stop before the election.
wandy
(3,539 posts)If marriage equality is left up to the states, then what about.....
Abortion?
Legalizing marijuana?
Birth control?
Racial equality?
Health care?
It just doesn't appear that we are dealing with all matters in a consistent manner.
emulatorloo
(44,120 posts)The same thing is going to have to happen with Marriage Equality too, IMHO.
A case on one of these anti-marriage-equality cases is going to have to come before the Supreme Court. Court will have to rule that is is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue, not a "States Rights" Issue. Then federal govt will be able to intervene.
If I had to bet, I would bet something like this is already in the works.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,683 posts)Instead I hope Obama will have the chance to appoint a couple more justices, because the five conservative nutjobs we have now will most likely torpedo any civil rights claim for same sex marriage, notwithstanding the precedent of Loving v. Virginia.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)removing that power of the states to decide the issue. No marriage equality in America, nowhere, no way, no how.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/05/10/481772/romney-adviser-gillespie-constitutional-marriage-ba/
rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)nice try to deflect attention from obama's lack of a real stance (legal not moral).
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Obama has made a real stand. So has Romney. You have a clear choice in November.
rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)Romney's position is clearly an attack on marriage equality. But Obamas statement in no way is a "defense" of marriage equality. It is a statement of moral support. That's all well and good, but the attacks that are coming are NOT moral attacks. They are legal attacks. As a constitutional lawyer Obama knows this. He knows full well that what was on the ballot in NC (where I live and vote) was not "do you think it is OK for same sex couples to marry?". The question was basically "do you think same sex couples have an inalienable right to marry?". And based on Obama's statement essentially affirming the validity of Ammendment One, the simple answer is NO. There were no "Maybe", "Sometimes", or "If the states decide its OK" boxes on the ballot.
You can't selectively quote his position and conveniently ignore all the stuff about states rights to make this seem like more than it really is: a clever bit of triangulation in an election year. And it is working.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)"You can't selectively quote his position and conveniently ignore all the stuff about states rights to make this seem like more than it really is: a clever bit of triangulation in an election year. And it is working."
So you are here actively working against what you see as the President's re-election strategy? You openly admit this?
rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)I don't have any influence over what the president's campaign strategy is.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)and continues to do.
And let's be honest about what kneecapping this extraordinary President and getting Mitt Romney elected will mean for our rights as LGBT Americans.
Let's be honest about it all.
rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)Has this administration done a lot for the LGBT community...I'm not the spokesperson for an entire group of people...but sure.
Would Mittens be worse for everyone including the LGBT community (excluding the rich...LGBT or otherwise)? We can all probably agree that's a Yes.
Does that mean we should call a sitting president stating a personal opinion that (when read in full) validates the discriminatory Amendment One taking a stand? uh...NO.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)and I need to make shitaid out of them.
Yesterday was a banner day. The sitting President of the United States endorsed marriage equality in an election year. You and any other poster still raining on this parade are doing MORE damage to your cause than you know.
People are ecstatic over this. Even the gay bloggers I usually avoid for their constant drumbeat of doom (AmericaBlog, Glenn Greenwald, etc.) were unanimous in saying this was a big fucking deal. Greenwald even batted away the temptation to do exactly what you are doing.
And yet within an hour of this breaking, some sainted few were here telling us the proper way to think about this was OMG OBAMA FAILED US AGAIN.
You are right about one thing. You are NOT the spokesperson for an entire group. I'm gay and you sure as hell don't speak for me or any of my friends, gay or straight, nor most of DU. I certainly do thank you for your concern that we all see this as the foul defeat for LGBT Americans you see it as, but I'm not gonna. I got better things to do than attend your sad little party.
Marriage is a state issue. Until we get rid of DOMA, which is happening, the Feds can't get involved. And until we stop losing state battles for marriage equality and start winning them (the way that interracial marriage bans were being overturned right and left before Loving), it's not going to happen. And the way to win state battles is for people like the President to stand up and say I am for marriage equality. But not just him:
We have to be visible. We have to serve our country with honor. We have to take our place in open society. And every indignity visited upon us, every injustice seen by our family and friends will only hasten the day when we cannot be denied any longer. The President is on our side. I for one am completely knocked over by that and join every other DUer who is celebrating this milestone.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)but in NC, the day after Amendment One passed, it sounded like "Oh well...too bad."
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)You heard, "Oh, well, too bad."
I heard, "Oh, hell, no."
rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)endorse and defend are two different things
dionysus
(26,467 posts)emulatorloo
(44,120 posts)dadchef
(31 posts)I can't believe what I am reading on my only site that brings me any relief from the nuts that surround me each and every day.. Our President, and yours too I add, has taken what could be the deciding factor in his reelection aspirations, and put it on the line.. I have my personal doubts about the polls that more than half of the cretins in the USA, welcome same sex marriage.. It may be so, but I know that the real fervor on the subject lives in the black hearts of the opposition, and the poor folks that live under the jackboot of the bigots.. The rest couldn't care a wit, except it sounds ok..
It's time to stand together, and work inside and out of the public view to bring this injustice to an end.. I can't believe how far this administration have brought us in the fight for gay rights and ultimate equality, in just 3 1/2 years.. GIVE ME A BREAK, WHAT OTHER MAN HAS DONE SO MUCH?
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT!
Swede
(33,236 posts)dadchef
(31 posts)Thank you Swede, I have been a viewer for years.. I finally signed up, but always read and research before responding to the many topics, but if I wait, some of the many experts, like you, will say exactly what I feel before I botch my emotional, uneducated response.. Better to be thought a fool, than speak up and remove all doubt..
ecstatic
(32,701 posts)He has gone further than any other U.S. President and I'm guessing he'll go even farther if re-elected. Did you expect him to sign an executive order during the appearance? Feel free to stay home in November, I'm sure Romney will be so much better.
rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)Its nice that he feels this way. But I also expect him to say that it doesn't matter whether he, or I , or you, or anyone else thinks same sex couples should be able to do or not. That marriage equality should be defended equally under the law.
I didn't expect him to validate Amendment One by giving a nod to states rights.
emulatorloo
(44,120 posts)Posted by kpete:
Reid: Democratic party platform will include pro-gay marriage plank [View all]
Source: The Hill
Reid: Democratic party platform will include pro-gay marriage plank
By Alexander Bolton - 05/10/12 01:44 PM ET
The Democrats top leader in Congress said Thursday that the partys platform will soon include a plank calling for the legalization of gay marriage.
The presidents in favor of it Im sure it will be included, said Reid.
..........................
President Obama said on Wednesday that same-sex marriage should be legal. He said his thinking on the topic evolved after mulling the Golden Rule.
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/226709-reid-democratic-party-platform-will-include-pro-gay-marriage-plank
-------------
IMHO you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole by continuing to claim Obama's statement yesterday is meaningless/bad
rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,912 posts)rapturedbyrobots
(400 posts)but they have the responsibility to defend your right to choose or not choose whatever religion you wish.
logic fail.
K8-EEE
(15,667 posts)The states however do not have a right to deny civil rights granted by the constitution-- that has already been hashed out.
Mass
(27,315 posts)I hope DOMA gets reversed quickly, but it will be by the Supreme Court, given the wonderful congress we have.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)If they have no gay marriage, why do the need a "law" or "amendment" against it? They are afraid the voters want it, and so they go for a 'constitutional' amendment that it can't be done. But if they can change their Constitution by plesbecite, then they can change the laws.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)make it harder to change legislatively.
randome
(34,845 posts)SteveG
(3,109 posts)It's a major first step. It's like Truman's integrating the Military. He didn't end segregation, but he ended it in the Military. Eisenhower went a little bit further, as did Kennedy. LBJ's great saving grace was that he went all in, but he knew that American People were mostly ready for it. Obama has ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell. he won't defend DOMA and now he supports Gay Marriage in principal. Taken all together, that is huge.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Lets be fair to the POTUS here...
1) He has demonstrated clear initiative on the federal level by not defending DOMA in court
2) Though he said it is a state issue, he has stated a clear preference for how states OUGHT to handle the issue by consistently opposing gay marriage bans on the state level.
3) If the Supreme Court does one day rule that marriage equality is a fundamental right that can be derived from the US constitution, it's likely that justices he has appointed will be on the majority side.
And with all due respect, what the fuck has Dick Cheney ever done for gay rights?
emulatorloo
(44,120 posts)By Zack Ford on May 9, 2012 at 3:42 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/09/481318/lcr-obama-marriage/?mobile=nc
The Log Cabin Republicans R. Clarke Cooper was quick to try to discredit Obamas announcement supporting marriage equality today, calling it cold comfort and offensive and callous in the immediate wake of Amendment Ones passage in North Carolina:
COOPER: That the president has chosen today, when LGBT Americans are mourning the passage of Amendment One, to finally speak up for marriage equality is offensive and callous. Log Cabin Republicans appreciate that President Obama has finally come in line with leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney on this issue, but LGBT Americans are right to be angry that this calculated announcement comes too late to be of any use to the people of North Carolina, or any of the other states that have addressed this issue on his watch. This administration has manipulated LGBT families for political gain as much as anybody, and after his campaigns ridiculous contortions to deny support for marriage equality this week he does not deserve praise for an announcement that comes a day late and a dollar short.
Though LCR claims not to endorse candidates, this absurd attack suggests the group would rather stand with Mitt Romney, who has pledged to support a federal marriage amendment banning same-sex marriage nationwide. Coming from a group whose mission is to secure full equality for gays and lesbians, this is a stunning example of petty partisan politics.
--------------------------
Several DU'ers seemed to have latched on to this talking point, despite the inane absurdity of it.
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)That's kind of a job requirement.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)The President of the United States came out in favor of gay marriage is what is being talked about. all the parsing in the world is not going to diminish the significance of that.