Memo To Barack: It's NEVER been about religious marriage

[ruggerson]

And you know perfectly well that the same sex marriage movement in this country has always been about CIVIL marriages. The kind that get handed out at the local courthouse and confer all kinds of state and federal civil rights.

Yet for some reason, you conflate RELIGIOUS marriage with civil and when asked about same sex marriage, your response is that churches should be able to marry whom they please.

Well, you know perfectly well that the first amendment covers that now and always has. Liberal churches have been marrying gays for decades and conservative churches have not. But religious marriage is meaningless, as it does not confer any state rights - only CIVIL marriage does this.

Yet, you keep trying to confuse people, ON PURPOSE, which tells me some very negative things about your character, Barack. If you don't support same sex marriage, like John Edwards, at least have the balls just to flat out say you don't. Stop trying to confuse people who aren't familiar with the issue.

[peacebird]

1. that answer disappointed me as well

[sandnsea]

2. Of course it's about religious marriage

What's been the excuse for opposing gay marriage? Religion.

If you have one legal standard for everyody - and then let people get married by whatever church they want - then the problem is solved.

If that's what he advocated, someone finally hit it on the head.

[Ethelk2044]

3. I agree. The Church's are the ones who perform marriages. You can

not force a church to perform a martial ceremony

[ruggerson]

4. That's not what he said

He said he supported CIVIL UNIONS and wanted to let the churches decide for themselves whom to marry.

The churches ALREADY decide that for themselves. It's not the issue and it never has been.

He did not advocate abolishing civil marrige for everybody and calling it civil unions - hetero and homo alike.

Instead, he tried to conflate the issue and confuse people. Absolutely appalling.

[Ethelk2044]

6. I disagree

[ruggerson]

7. With what?

that's what the man said.

[maximusveritas]

13. He must have confused me because I don't get this

If you have civil unions which confer all the rights of marriage, and you have a religious marriage as well, then you appear to have all the aspects of a marriage between a man and a woman.

[sandnsea]

15. That's the point people need to hear

Churches will always be able to decide who they marry. At the government level, everybody can have the same civil contract. That's the exact answer if you consider the whole country.

[ruggerson]

18. it's usually REPUBLICANS who do this

try to bring religious marriages into this to stir up homophobia and confuse people. Had he said what you are saying, it would have been fine. Had he said "people have to understand that this issue has nothing to do with what the churches do, as they already have the right and will continue to have the right to either marry gays or not marry them. This issue is solely about the state and federal rights conferred with a civil marriage certificate."

Unfortunately he did not say that, but used religious marriage the same way that Republicans do. To play to the homophobes.

[sandnsea]

20. No he didn't

He talked in a way that the rest of the country can hear. Different people come to issues with different belief systems. If you keep talking with words that only 5% can understand, then you're never going to get change.

Telling the religious that nobody is going to mess with church marriage is something they need to hear.

Then you can get to the legal matter of equality. It's called removing objections. Salesmen do it all the time.

[ruggerson]

21. I more often than not agree with much of what you write s 'n s

but I don't think you get how offensive this answer was to many gays and lesbians.

It is analogous to some white person saying a generation ago: "let interracial couples have a separate but equal institution we won't call actual "marriage" and let's make sure the churches can continue to refuse to marry them."

It's not brave. It's not bold. It's not honest. It's not inspiring. It's not anything he claims his candidacy is about. It's just sickening.

[sandnsea]

23. I don't think so

I think he said let everybody go get the same civil document. And let people get married in whatever church they want. I dare say there are churches who won't perform interracial marriages to this day, and there is nothing can be done about it.

Oregon just passed civil unions and I swear to god I am sick of people pretending that it's nothing. It's not. It's great progress and needs to be respected.

[ruggerson]

27. You're projecting what you would LIKE him to have said

he said nothing about gays and straights having the same civil contract. He said he supports civil unions and then threw in the unnecessary remark about leaving churches alone.

Had he said what YOU want him to say, that would be another story entirely.

But he didn't.

Btw, no one asks any of the candidates the most important question as it relates to civil unions. Do they support a FEDERAL civil union law which would give full federal tax equality to gay and lesbian couples. Without a FEDERAL law, this is all meaningless.

[sandnsea]

29. They've already stated their views

"All eight Democratic presidential candidates support granting gays in state-sanctioned unions the 1,100 federal benefits they now lack."

http://www.washblade.com/2007/6-8/news/national/10718.cfm

No, most Democrats do not support the word "gay marriage". They support whatever civil term applies, that provides all rights. Obama adds the point that people can already go get married by any church that will marry them, and thats true and will not ever change.

[ruggerson]

30. I don't know what the polling is on same sex marriage

though I suspect you're wrong and it's probably as many Dems support it as oppose it. But, frankly, on matters of right and wrong, leaders lead and don't obfuscate. He obfuscated.

Glad HRC has clarified the federal vs state matter. I have yet to see a federal civil unions bill introduced into congress and suspect that DOMA might have to be overturned before one can be voted on.

[sandnsea]

37. One county in Oregon supported it

One. The rest all voted down gay marriage rights in 2004. Just like Oregon voted down single payer health care in 2000. If these things can't pass in Oregon, they can't pass pretty much anywhere.

Obama didn't say anything different than most Democrats say. I can't figure out why you've singled him out over everybody else.

[maximusveritas]

22. I agree completely

My guess is that most gay people will see his idea as the most practical way of getting the equal rights that they need.

[barack4prez]

5. Big deal

Unless there's a Constitutional amendment, this is not a federal issue, let alone a presidential issue. It's a bullshit question in a presidential debate and a waste of time.

[ruggerson]

10. Of course it's a federal issue

just like Loving Vs. VIrginia was. The Defense of Marriage act is a FEDERAL law and it prevents states from recognizing other states same sex marriages.

But the bigger deal is the window this shows into Obama's character.

I'm always surprised when ethnic and racial minorities don't fully support gay rights. You'd think they'd be even MORE sensitive to these issues than the average white guy.

[msongs]

11. its not a bullshit question for millions of gays and millions of gay bashers

or for the presidential candidates who espouse equal values/rights when it suits him but not for everybodye when it doesn't suit him.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[sniffa]

31. yeah, who cares

it's just a bunch of sodomites.

no speciaL rights for sodomites!1!!1!

[NMMNG]

35. It is a federal issue

Gay/lesbian individuals cannot get the 1,000+ federal protections guaranteed by legal marriage because they are denied that right thanks to the bigotry of people to whom these people pander. It's a federal issue, a presidential issue, a civil-rights issue, and certainly not a waste of time.

[Maven]

39. Really? It's not a federal issue?

Have you heard of DOMA? The FMA?

[JerseygirlCT]

67. I disagree. I think it's a basic civil rights issue and how the candidate

responds to such questions matters a great deal to me.

[cboy4]

8. Unfortunately, he disappoints me with practically everything that

comes out of his mouth.

In my opinion, he comes across as a phony.

[Colobo]

9. Don't vote for him.

[cboy4]

12. Yes, unless he starts acting more honest, I probably won't. n/t

[Maven]

40. Ditto on that.

Total phony.

[MalloyLiberal]

61. I can tell a liar when I see one

Obama and Hillary are lying.

Edwards is just being honest.
Kucinich is being honest.

Dodd, I'm not sure.
Richardson, pandering.

[Mark Twain Girl]

14. Yes, very disappointing -- civil marriage is a question of basic rights. n/t

[Exultant Democracy]

16. It was a very weak answer, I'm looking for civil rights lions, not

civil rights field mice.

[Not Me]

17. In two weeks, the HRC and LogoTV are hosting a GLBT-focused

debate.
I can't wait for tough questions to come.

[Mark Twain Girl]

19. Oh hey, thanks - I didn't know about this. REALLY looking forward to it. n/t

[Hieronymus]

24. It was pointed out to Obama that blacks and whites couldn't marry until

1967. I think he's being dishonest. :eyes:

[Indy_Dem_Defender]

25. Get a clue

Civil Unions, civil marriages what's the difference? If everyone has the same exact rights what's the difference?

[cboy4]

28. Why would you post such an aggressive rhetorical question

when you don't understand that there is a difference.

Marriage provides more than 1,000 federal rights that civil unions do not, including

Social Security survivor and pension benefits •

Hospital visitation rights •

Medical decision-making rights •

Inheritance rights •

Family leave under the federal Family Medical Leave Act •

End-of-life decisions

www.aclu-wa.org/library_files/WhyMarriageEqualityMatters.pdf

[maximusveritas]

32. So is it not possible to grant those rights under a civil union?

Obama has defined his idea of a civil union to include those rights listed specifically. Is that not possible?

[CTLawGuy]

33. actually no it doesn't

DOMA provides that in all federal laws "spouse" must mean someone of the opposite sex and "married couples" are a man and a woman.

It doesn't matter whether a state calls it marriage or civil unions.

[sandnsea]

44. And every Dem supports ALLof that

The only thing getting in the way of granting those rights are gay groups insisting the rights be identified as marriage.

[Maven]

47. Oh yeah,

we're always getting in the way.

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

57. In this case, it's true

Not in every state, obviously. But I would bet half the states would pass full civil unions if gay marriage were kept out of the equation. Gay groups don't want it, not my fault.

[Maven]

72. That is unbelievably insulting

and totally untrue.

Where are you getting this information from? Are you a member of any gay groups? Have you even been paying attention to the activity of antigay groups, who also oppose civil unions because they don't want us to have ANY rights or recognition at all? Are you aware that most state marriage amendments forbid the state from imparting the rights and incidents of marriage (i.e., even marriage by another name) to GLBT people? Or do you just like playing "blame the victim?"

[draft_mario_cuomo]

53. Gee, how dare "those people" demand equal respect by the state?

:sarcasm:

[NMMNG]

36. Civil Unions and Civil Marriages don't provide the same rights

That's what's the difference. You get a clue.

[Prophet 451]

38. They do here

I'm English. Here, Domestic Partnership provides the exact same legal rights, protections and responsibilities as marriage, it's even processed on the same paperwork. Blair (in one of the very few decisions I agreed with) decided to concede the word "marriage" but got absolutely everything else through.

[Maven]

42. Well they don't in America

with our federal system.

[Prophet 451]

45. Which is dumb n/t

[NMMNG]

48. Unfortunately that's not the case here

Even in NJ, where their "Domestic Partnerships" allegedly are (within the state) supposed to provide the same rights as marriage, plenty of gay/lesbian couples are having great difficulties with employers and various agencies that don't want to comply with the state law because federal law doesn't recognize gay marriages/unions. "Seperate but equal" simply isn't.

[Prophet 451]

49. That's the problem with state laws

Since we have one law for the whole country here, it's not a problem (and the employers who provide healthcare are forced to extend it to same-sex partners).

I still think this whole thing could be sorted by seperating teh religious and legal functions entirely. Take the package of legal rights and rename it "Civil Union" (or whatever, the name can be worked out in committee). Any two people who want a Civil Union can get one. The churches can have the word "marriage" and marry whomever they like but with no legal force. To make it fair, everyone in a legally recognised marriage currently automatically gets Civil Union status.

[NMMNG]

55. I agree

Unfortunately some believe "marriage" is a religious term and are holding fast to that notion, and it may be a long, hard fight to get that changed. I wouldn't care what it was called as long as everybody had the exact same legal rights across the board.

[TheDonkey]

59. What Obama called for was 100% of the rights

that marriage provides for gay Americans. Just because Vermont civil unions do not doesn't mean they can't.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. The stigma of not granting full marriage

Like the Supreme Court said in Brown v. Board of Education, separate but equal stamped a badge of inferiority onto people. Allowing civil unions but not marriage does the same. What is implicit in that is that such unions are inferior to heterosexual ones sanctioned as marriages. This is a fundamental human rights issue. Civil unions, not marriage, are an affront to the dignity of every GLBT person in America.

[JerseygirlCT]

68. Civil unions for gay folks do NOT give them the same rights

that's the problem.

[stillcool]

26. uh-oh..my husband and I...

got 'married' by a justice of the peace. Does this mean we're not really married...but civilly unioned?

[NMMNG]

34. Bravo

He, like others, is just trying to weasel out of the issue without entirely losing the LGBT vote. It's sickening the way so many feel the need to pander to the religious bigots when it has absolutely nothing to do with religious rights and everything to do with civil rights.

[illinoisprogressive]

41. why go after Obama when they all pretty much say the same thing.

[Maven]

43. Maybe it rankles people when a man writes a book called

"The Audacity of Hope" and doesn't have the audacity to support equal rights for a politically targeted group.

[MalloyLiberal]

64. Because he tried to bullshit instead of being honest

To try to provide some distinction between him and Edwards.

There ain't none.

[AtomicKitten]

46. I rather liked his "equal treatment under the law" argument

which to me seems more germane to the discussion in a democracy.

But then again the "equal treatment under the law" clause was argued successfully in the Bush v. Gore 2000 case, so there's that.

[LittleClarkie]

50. I dunno. It seems like some gay couples would like to be married in a church

and are offended when the candidates talk only of civil unions. I've seen it here, anyway.

[TheDonkey]

62. You can't force the catholic church to marry gays

and if they don't want to why would gays want to get married there!!! There are plenty of churches that will marry gays, we just need the RIGHTS to go along with it that Obama is FOR.

[JerseygirlCT]

69. The church marriage is between them and whatever church

they choose. It's not, and will not be, a legal issue.

The objection to civil unions is that they simply do not confer the same rights -- particularly in federal rights and in rights that cross state lines -- that marriage would.

[hedgehog]

51. Barack is a memeber of the United Church of Christ which affirms

same sex marriage:

US Church backs same-sex marriage

Massachusetts is currently the only state to allow same-sex marriages
The million-strong United Church of Christ (UCC) has become the first major US Christian denomination to come out in support of gay marriage.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4651803.stm

[Withywindle]

56. Yup, very good point!

I'm sick of the argument that marriage is "religious." What about the religions and denominations that have been performing same-gender commitment ceremonies without discrimination for decades? We exist, you know. I want to see this fought for on RELIGIOUS freedom grounds? What makes one denomination or religion's definition of marriage more deserving of LEGAL recognition than another?

*SOme* religions define marriage as between a man and a woman necessarily. Not all do. Mine doesn't.

[nickinSTL]

54. absolutely. I actually contacted his campaign, I was so annoyed

with that one.

It's utterly disingenuous, and a thoroughly political answer, IMO.

To say that straight people can have marriage, but gays can only have "civil unions" is just a new form of "separate but equal", IMO. And separate can NEVER be equal.

[MalloyLiberal]

63. I doubt that they care since you support Kucinich

Who actually takes principled positions on things.

[nickinSTL]

65. well, I didn't TELL them I support Kucinich

And Obama IS one of my Senators.

[JerseygirlCT]

70. Totally agree. nt

[TheDonkey]

58. It's the right way to answer that question.

Pretty much called for civil marriages without calling it marriage, let the religious denomination give it that moniker if necessary but his civil unions would have 100% of the rights and straight people would also get the civil unions.

I don't know what your problem is but he's very much for giving gay Americans 100% of the rights straights have when it comes to marriage.

[MalloyLiberal]

60. Ding ding ding!!

[Dawgs]

66. Your thread, even though I disagree with you, makes a great point.

How the Democratic candidates define gay marriage is critical to getting support, and figuring out how to get support for civil unions/marriages is difficult. Kucinich's answer will not fly in this day and time; which you, and everyone else, should understand.

The term "gay marriage" will not sell for another 15-20 years, and Obama knows this. He did a poor job of with his answer, but he was right.

[JerseygirlCT]

71. I think your timeline is off. Although you might end up correct if

no one today bothers to do anything about it.

It's not an issue that's going to progress without enough people pushing for that progress. Since it effects a small percentage of the population, their support alone won't do it.

When we hear it repeatedly framed as a civil rights issue (which is what it is), THEN we may start to see some movement.

[knitter4democracy]

73. And a lawyer should know the difference.

Churches can do what they want about civil marriage/divorce/whatever, but the government should do what's best for society, which would be to allow gays to marry.

[ripple]

74. Actually, I think he's approaching the issue in a very clever way

He knows better than to call it marriage, because that will make it a huge wedge issue, as it became in 2004.

If you listen to what he described, though, it was marriage. The same rights, same everything that straight couples get in the eyes of the law. I know I'm not the only one who has felt for a long time that the government shouldn't recognize ANY marriages per se; instead, they should recognize civil unions and and let the couple and/or their church call it what they want.

Obama is rightfully being cautious in the language he uses, but I think if you approach it from a different angle, you might see that rather than trying to pull one over on us, he's actually trying to make some headway with the marriage equality debate by framing it in a legal context, rather than an emotional one. We'll see how it plays out, but if my theory is correct, I don't think you will see Obama talking in anecdotal terms about how specific couples might benefit from civil unions. Instead, I think he'll speak of it in terms of equality, opportunity, fairness, etc. He has a wonderful knack for describing liberal ideas and principles in ways that make sense and that most people (even some sworn enemies of such notions)can relate to and keep an open mind about. I think that might very well be what he's trying to do with his approach to this issue. Just a thought. :shrug: