Obama Cites Sermon on the Mount in Defense of Pro-Gay Stance

[Ian David]

Speaking to a crowd in Ohio, Sen. Barack Obama said yesterday that the issue of LGBT equality is one that is included in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.

Obama was talking to a crowd on a Sunday, with the appearance taking a "town hall" approach. In the course of the discussion, Cybercast News Service reported in a post today, Obama said of domestic arrangements between couples of the same gender, "I will tell you that I don’t believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them."

Continued Obama, "So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other."

Obama, who has consistently said that he opposes marriage equality, went on to say, "I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state."

Continued the Ill. senator and hopeful for the Democratic nomination to this year’s presidential race, "If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."

Obama was responding to a question posed to him by a Protestant minister, Leon Forte, who said, "Your campaign sets a quandary for most evangelical Christians because I believe that they believe in the social agenda that you have, but they have a problem in what the conservatives have laid out as the moral litmus tests as to who is worthy and who is not."

More:
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=71081

[bicentennial_baby]

1. For fuck's sake, when will he evolve on this issue?

x(

Sigh!

[Coexist]

2. it bothers me too, but I think he thinks like an attorney

and figures, make sure the right is protected, first and foremost, then go after the nomenclature. Get it assimilated, let people see it doesn't affect their day to day lives, then move to ice the cake.

[bicentennial_baby]

9. One thing that really bugs me is that

he supports civil unions, based on equal protection. In MA, marriage equality was partially decided on equal protection! (Also on due process.)

Given, MA and the US have different constitutions, but the principle is the same.

I will try to hope that you are correct.

[Labors of Hercules]

70. You are exactly right.

Federal Non-discrimination laws generally apply to color, race, gender, religion, national origin, children and age.

Until sexuality becomes a protected class, the argument for "marriage" is a moot point.

[Cant trust em]

Interesting

Rainbow flag on the Obama logo, but still critical of him on this issue. Good for you being balanced.

Am I reading this correctly?

[bicentennial_baby]

14. It is my one overriding issue with him

I'm a member of the GLBT community, and it burns me up. But, I'm not a single issue (or set of related issues) voter, and I have to look at the overall picture. Civil rights, Economics, Health Care, Foreign Policy, etc. And here I am.


:shrug:

[Cant trust em]

48. It seems like I agree with Obama

If not calling it "marriage" will mollify the GOP into giving people the civil rights they deserve, then so be it. The states shouldn't be getting involved in something that is regulated by the Bible anyway. After we've made equal rights available, then we can worry about the semantics. As long as LGBT couples get the same rights as straight couples then I'll be happy.

Any thoughts?

[Ian David]

56. The State has no more business regulating marriage than it does in deciding who can get circumcised.

I don't see Jews complaining that hospitals are circumcising non-Jews.

Why should churches complain if The State allows Civil Unions?

[Cant trust em]

65. Does the GOP want big gov't or small?

It would be great if they could pick one.

[Ian David]

66. They want a government they can drown in a bathtub.

[Cant trust em]

83. Then they keep their noses out of our personal business

Would a little consistency be too much to ask for?

[Ian David]

84. They need to know what you're doing with your penis. n/t

[Cant trust em]

86. Then they should read my blog

www.canttrustemspenis.com

DU is great for Monday afternoons at the office.

[Ian David]

92. No, no NO! They only want to know what you're doing with your penis when you don't want them to know

[Cant trust em]

97. Oh now I get it.

That's part of the turn on. Like dudes who only like to watch.

Reminds me of when a sex tourist tried to pick me up last week. Man that really freaked me out.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

69. I think all unions should be civil unions

That is, the contract that gives people the rights of survivor benefits, hospital visitation, etc, etc, should be one solemnized in court. If a person then wishes to marry, they are free to do so in whatever church or mosque or temple they wish. This was how my husband and I did it-civil ceremony took place about a year before the spiritual one did. I wouldn't have minded if folks called the first one a civil union. And the ministers who performed our spiritual union were glad they didn't have to mess with courthouse paperwork.

And I'm saying this as an ordained minister who will be glad to unite anyone in spiritual union.

[Cant trust em]

75. Everyone is a winner.

Everytime I see a wedding performed and the minister says the line "by the power vested in me by the state of California" it always raises and eyebrow.

That is the line, right?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

80. well, in the one legal marriage I performed

the couple requested I say, "By the authority of the black bean state of Arkansas"--but it is basically the same thing. :)

And yep, it made me feel strange to do that--I feel that my ordination was not for becoming a deputy county clerk.

[Cant trust em]

93. We certainly don't want Gov't dictating to religion

so why would we want religion dictating to our gov't? It's funny how this seems so obvious to us can be so complicated to the country. Proof that we DUers a higher order of goofball than the rest of the country.

[Hoof Hearted]

103. That's my favorite solution actually. Declare all unions recognized by the state "civil" and let

the churches marry whom they wish.

[Hoof Hearted]

102. Yeah, as a married heterosexual, I'm pissed at all of them for not supporting

the rights of ALL people to marry the adult person of their choice. It's bullshit.

[NMMNG]

104. Aye caramba

You're actually perpetuating that "marriage is regulated by the Bible" bullshit? :banghead:

[Cant trust em]

108. I really don't care what people want to call marriage

I'm just concerned about civil rights. If giving people letting people define marriage the way they want will allow me to get the civil rights that I want, then I'll be happy. Semantics are a non-issue to me. I'll let that be someone else's fight.

[NMMNG]

109. They're just using that as one more weapon against us

Atheists and other non-religious people have been getting married forever. People can get married without benefit of clergy or houses of worship (just ask my parents). If we concede this we concede every other phony religion-based/Bible-based argument they make against us and our Human/Civil Rights. "Marriage" is not owned by any religion, as much as some might like to think it is.

[Cant trust em]

112. I'm for the separation of church and state

Civil rights are regulated by government, essentially an extension of the people. "Clergy or Houses of Worship" are things unto their own and are regulated by someone/something else, certainly not by the people. Once we get the two separated then we can have the civil ceremony upon which property and financial rights are bestowed then people will be able to get married or emotionally joined in whatever way they chose. The two should be separate and then people's churches can marry them however they want and people like your parents can get married however they want.

[NMMNG]

114. Churches are currently free to marry people however they want

When has any church been forced by the government to marry an atheist couple, a couple of another faith, etc?

The claims that the religious are making that they'd be forced to marry gay couples against their religious beliefs are just more bullshit concocted to keep same-sex marriage from being legalized. The public and, more importantly, the politicians hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the poor Christians having their "religious rights" taken away and that's the end of that. They never bother to investigate and find out that the claims are all exaggerations or lies. Nor do they have the spine to finally say that nobody has the "religious right" to deny others their Human/Civil Rights.

[Cant trust em]

115. That's why I want the civil and the emotional/religious ceremonies to be separated

To get the government recognition of a union confirmed people should have to go to city hall or the county office to work out the issues regarding their tax returns, property rights, etc. Then when they want to get married they can go to their house of worship or wherever they choose to get that done. This whole "by the power vested in me by the state of california" thing needs to end. That way a church can perform gay marriages if they want and since no power is given to them by the state then churches can't complain that they are having their "religious rights" taken from them.

[NMMNG]

116. They already are

You can have a brazillion church weddings, but if you don't have the marriage license from the state to back it up you aren't legally married. Yes, the clergy person has to sign it after s/he performs the ceremony, but the license still has to be there.

On the other hand, you can get legally married without any religious involvement whatsoever, and merely state involvement.


Do you get it now? Religion in no way whatsoever owns marriage. They're really mere figureheads when it comes to the whole process, as much as they try to claim they're the whole kit and kaboodle.

[Cant trust em]

117. "Yes, the clergy person has to sign it after s/he performs the ceremony"

and I want it to be totally separate. I'm fine with the state granting civil unions, since the word civil indicates that it is strictly a state matter of finances, taxes, property rights, etc. If people want a "marriage" then they can go somewhere else, but not to city hall. We don't deal with that here. To me marriage is a fluffy, emotional word and I want the goverment to deal with business/legal language.

[NMMNG]

118. Marriage is the word that's been around forever

And it's the word to which the government attaches all of the legal rights/obligations. Whether you think it's "fluffy and emotional" or the RRRW think it's "sacred", the fact remains that it is still the word that applies to the union to which the rights apply.


I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Cant trust em]

119. One thing we can agree on

is that gay couples and married couples deserve the same rights as granted by law. If the Christian right can't handle that then fuck them.

[NMMNG]

120. Indeed

:thumbsup:

[terrya]

124. It has to be marriage. Civil Unions don't confer the same rights as marriage.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/02/021708nj.htm

[Ian David]

5. I have a similar view. I believe in Separation of State and Marriage.

I believe that The State should perform, legislate, regulate and recognize ONLY Civil Unions for EVERYONE-- gay or straight.

What the fuck is The State doing mucking about with religious ceremonies anyway?

You wanna get married? That's a Religious matter between you and whatever flavor of deity you find significant.

You want The State to recognize a Legal Union? Then you need a Civil Union from the Civil Authorities-- whether you're gay or straight.

IMHO, if we were to grant FEDERAL Civil Unions for gay couples, that is the direction we would-- correctly-- evolve to.

[bicentennial_baby]

17. Interesting p.o.v.

Food for thought :)

[Ian David]

28. Both Tony Campolo and Alan Dershowitz share that oppinion, BTW.

Also:

To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business
By Alan M. Dershowitz

The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declaring that gays have a constitutional right to marry could become a powerful wedge issue in American politics. There is, however, a way to avoid that.

Those who oppose gay marriage believe deeply that marriage is sacreda divine, a blessed sacrament between man and woman as ordained in the Bible. If they are right, then the entire concept of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state.

The state is, of course, concerned with the secular rights and responsibilities that are currently associated with the sacrament of marriage: the financial consequences of divorce, the custody of children, Social Security and hospital benefits, etc.

The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.

More:
http://www.rossde.com/editorials/Dershowitz_marriage.html


Also:

Tony Campolo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Campolo

[bicentennial_baby]

31. I just don't see the majority of Americans buying into that...

especially in the Red states. I really don't know what the solution is, other than overriding Dem majorities at every level of government, state and federal. And I hate saying that, b/c it shouldn't be so f'n difficult. Where's the humanity in this country?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

74. Well,

I strongly favor this--and I was married in a civil ceremony in TEXAS about a year before my husband and I were able to have our spiritual ceremony. So I know that it can be done and accepted, because that is what happened to us.

[bicentennial_baby]

77. Sniffa and I also have a civil marriage

We were married by a friend, by the Governor's dispensation. Weird MA law that says any person can marry a couple, as long as they apply and pass a background check, and they can only do it once per year. :)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

81. Cool!

I've officiated at one legal marriage, but several spiritual ones. As an ordained minister, I prefer the latter.

[Critters2]

76. I've tried to explain to my congregation that this is the reasonable solution.

But people cannot get their heads around it. The religious and civil aspects have been intertwined for so long that people can't se them as different functions. It's so clearly a constitutional problem, but no one wants to say so out loud.

[bicentennial_baby]

79. Bingo

It's completely Constitutional, BUT, I pray that it doesn't get near the SC anytime soon, what with the current makeup of the Court. Hell no.

[Gore1FL]

39. I have held that veiw since it became a topic

Rather libertarian of us... :)

[Ian David]

44. Don't call me a Libertarian. I haven't smoked pot in YEARS. n/t

[stahbrett]

47. Exactly my position - marriages for religions, civil unions for governments (nt)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

72. Yes yes yes

I should have read downthread before I posted a response. You and I are in agreement on this. As I stated in the earlier post, my husband and I were married by a judge about a year before we had our spiritual union. I would have had no problem with people calling the first a civil union.

[sandnsea]

6. When Oregon got civil unions

gays were elated. I keep wondering when gays will evolve to the point that they put civil rights in every state first, and worry about the stupid word "marriage" later.

[bicentennial_baby]

21. Your post is seriously offensive

GLBT persons who are in civil unions are missing out on 1000+ *Federal* rights that married couples receive.

Fuck that noise.

:thumbsdown:

[damonm]

34. Cite some, please...

because, if that's so, it's not a true "civil union", and should not be recognized as such.

[bicentennial_baby]

52. Here's a few:

Portability of rights: Married- Automatically recognized in all 50 states, Civil Union- Recognition not guaranteed outside the state that grants it.

Medical Decisions/Emergencies: Married- A spouse or family member may make decisions for an incompetent or disabled person unless contrary written instructions exist, and can generally visit their partner in the hospital. Civil Union- Partner's right to visitation and medical decision making may not be recognized out of state.

Gift and Property transfer tax: Married- May make unlimited transfers and gifts to each other without paying tax. Civil union- Large gifts and transfers are subject to Federal taxes.

Inheritance: Married- Automatic right to inherit without a will; inheritance not taxed at the state or federal level. Civil union- Not taxed at the state level; fully taxed at the federal level, not guaranteed outside of granting state.

And those are only 4 of 1,138 Federal rights, benefits, and protections that married people receive and people in civil unions do not.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

78. Then this should change

and the best way I see to do this is to make civil unions required of everyone. I'm serious about this, and mean no disrespect. I just firmly believe that secular contracts and spiritual unions should be kept separate--in fact, that is how my husband and I handled things when we hitched our wagons together.

[bicentennial_baby]

88. I completely agree with you, I just

can't see a way to accomplish it. Maybe I'm just burned out from the primaries and cynical. :)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

94. Here's a hug for you

hope you feel better soon. :hug:

[Ian David]

59. Here's some info

Fact Sheet
MARRIAGE RIGHTS UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW

Devoted gay and lesbian couples shoulder the responsibilities of marriage, but have few of the legal
rights and protections. Married couples receive more than 1400 protections, rights and benefits under
state and federal law. Under current Massachusetts and federal law, gay and lesbian couples in long-term,
committed relationships pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections and rights granted to married
couples.

Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make
medical decisions. Gay and lesbian couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in
the hospital.

Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse.
Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian workers receive no Social Security survivor benefits
resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.
Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their
employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian
employees. Gay employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income
taxes on the value of the insurance. Same-sex couples cannot even buy a family health insurance policy
on the open market.


Estate taxes. A spouse who dies may leave an unlimited amount of property to the surviving spouse
without paying any state or federal estate taxes. Without the benefit of marriage, any amount of property
over the federal or state exclusion amounts is taxed.

Inheritance rights. When a married person’s spouse dies, the survivor can automatically inherit a
substantial share from the deceased spouse’s estate regardless of whether a will exists. Without marriage,
a long-time partner has no automatic right to inherit.

Retirement savings. While a married person can roll over a deceased spouse’s 401(k) or IRA funds into
an IRA without paying taxes, a lesbian or gay senior must withdraw the entire amount, pay income taxes
on it and also lose the tax deferral benefits of these accounts.

Family leave. Married workers in many workplaces are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to
care for an ill spouse but gay and lesbian workers have no right to family leave.

Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high
nursing-home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection. A non-married partner can be forced
to sell his or her own house to repay a state lien for nursing home care. A non-married partner who lives
in the home but does not own it could even be forced from the home to pay nursing home costs.

Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of
the participant so gay and lesbian workers get no pension support for their surviving partners and any
pension dies with the worker.

Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. An unmarried and
elderly gay or lesbian couple does not have the right to spend their final days together in a nursing home.

More:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:8ar6Cq-4K8cJ:www.mlgba.org/upload/files/MarriageRights.pdf+federal+rights+under+marriage+gay&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

[Ian David]

61. Hurricane Katrina Delivers Second Blow To Gay Families

Katrina Delivers Second Blow To Gay Families
by Fidel Ortega 365Gay.com Miami Bureau
Posted: September 1, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Dallas, Texas) Recovering from the devastation of hurricane Katrina may be particularly difficult for same-sex couples who are not recognized in any of the three states directly hit by the storm or in those states where refugees have fled.

Louisiana has a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and prevents the state from recognizing any legal status for common-law relationships, domestic partnerships or civil unions. Mississippi and Alabama both have defense of marriage acts which also deny rights to gay and lesbian couples.

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act prevents FEMA from providing any relief in the form of family benefits to same-sex couples.

The laws also will directly impact gay and lesbian families where one partner has died as a result of the hurricane.

Federal DOMA bars Social Security survivor benefits. State benefits would also be denied.

More:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/09/090105nolaGay.htm



Also:
Hurricane Relief: LGBTs line up to help after Katrina slams South
by Andrew Davis
2005-09-07

<snip>

Katrina and LGBT Victims: Legal Aspects

Recovering from the devastation of hurricane Katrina may be especially difficult for same-sex couples who are not recognized in any of the three states directly hit by the storm or in those states where refugees have fled, according to 365Gay.com.

Louisiana has a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and prevents the state from recognizing any legal status for common-law relationships, domestic partnerships or civil unions. Mississippi and Alabama both have acts that also deny rights to gay and lesbian couples.

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act ( DOMA ) prevents FEMA from providing any relief in the form of family benefits to same-sex couples. The laws also will directly impact gay and lesbian families where one partner has died because of the hurricane. Federal DOMA bars Social Security survivor benefits. State benefits would also be denied.

Moreover, in cases where one partner is hospitalized the other partner may be denied visitation rights or any say in funeral/burial decisions.

More:
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=9378

[sandnsea]

41. And both Clinton & Obama pledge to fix that

It doesn't require the word "marriage" to do it.

[Ian David]

58. It is POSSIBLE that the guy meant well but stated his oppinion poorly. Let's allow him to clarify?nt

[bicentennial_baby]

60. I'm sorry, but I'm sick of people shifting this onto the GLBT community

That we have to adapt, not them. It's bullshit.

[Ian David]

62. I agree with you, but I'm not ENTIRELY sure that's what he meant. n/t

[Ian David]

107. After reviewing some of this person's other posts, I think you're right.

I don't think they mean well.

[bicentennial_baby]

121. Thanks!

Any chance you'll come to the Boston meetup in a few weeks? :hi:

[Ian David]

125. Hopefully, yes. n/t

[sniffa]

29. evolve and enjoy the "blacks only" drinking fountains

:wtf:

Thanks for the orts from the grown up table.

[sandnsea]

43. There aren't "gays only" drinking fountains in Oregon

that's a stupid argument. Gays have civil unions and civil rights protections in Oregon. They don't in most other states. It's stupid to say that isn't huge progress when it is.

[sniffa]

50. How does that work for them when they go out of state?

Or how about the Federal Government not recognizing it, and denying them 1138 Federal benefits, rights and protections. Yes, it's a good thing for starters, but don't say be happy we gave you some crumbs. It's a long hard slog, but your dismissive nature is not in any way conducive to furthering equal rights.

[Ian David]

63. More like, "Drink from the urinals and call it a drinking fountain"? n/t

[NMMNG]

105. I keep wondering when bigots will put civil rights first

And leave their petty bigotries behind. :shrug:

[tekisui]

13. My greatest Obama sticking point.

[bicentennial_baby]

24. Same here.

:pals:

[UALRBSofL]

45. Waves to bicentennial_baby

:) :hi:

[bicentennial_baby]

53. Hi!

:hi:

[LittleClarkie]

82. Thing is, his answer is the same as most of the candidates in 2004 and 2008

Civil unions yes, marriage no.

[bicentennial_baby]

90. I know, and I protest loudly every time

:) It's really gets under my skin.

[anonymous171]

3. NOTE: He was talking to a protestant minister.

[Critters2]

19. Which matters why? The man was just a voter in this context.

Besides, some of us Protestant ministers, including a majority in Obama's denomination, support gay marriage.

[anonymous171]

23. I thought some might take offense to his use of biblical text.

[Critters2]

32. I just wish he'd stop kissing up to Evangelicals.

Makes me nervous.

[Qutzupalotl]

4. Fine. Equal treatment is all that the state should care about.

Marriage is a religious issue. Let the churches et al fight over that one.

[NJSecularist]

7. Why get up in arms about it?

John Edwards said the same thing, and he is the anointed one on this forum.

As unfortunate as it is, every major Democratic candidate has this stance.

It's a shame, but it's the truth.

[Ian David]

10. Kucinich, Gravel and Richardson supported Marriage Equality.

Oh, you said MAJOR candidates, didn't you?

[NJSecularist]

16. Yes.

Everybody knew when this primary started that either Hillary, Edwards or Obama would win the nomination.

And all 3 of them have the same views on this - I am not in favor of gay marriage, but we'll give you civil union rights. Let's not take this out on Obama when the other 2 candidates had the same views.

[sniffa]

20. Richardson said he didn't support marriage

So did Dodd, which disappointed me greatly as he just gave an incredible speech on the floor about it 2 days prior.

[Ian David]

35. Are you sure? I thought I remembered Richardson... Oh, you're right!

Richardson did some kind of waffling on Gay Marriage during his Logo Channel interview.

[sniffa]

42. I appreciated his honesty though

He said, from memory, "Our country isn't there yet. When we get there, I'll be the first to support it." or something to that effect.

[anonymous171]

11. I think they're trying to avoid mobilizing the GOP's evangelicals

I too wish they would support Marriage Equality.

[NJSecularist]

22. Exactly.

And I wish they wouldn't, but let's be realistic - being in support of gay marriage is political suicide at this point. It sucks, but it's an unfortunate reality. If you are in favor of gay marriage, not civil unions, you are branded as a part of the "loony left" and you have no chance of getting the coalition required to win a general election.

[rinsd]

8. While I think connecting Jesus's message of tolerenace is important.

I wish he would come out for gay marriage.

My candidate greatly disappoints on this issue as well.

[Ian David]

12. Gay Civil Unions will eventually lead to a Separation of State and Marriage.

Where the State does Civil Unions for all, and the Churches do symbolic marriages for whomever they wish.

I have no moral objection to Marriage Equality.

Actually, I'm in favor of Marriage Equality.

As a minister in The Universal Life Church, I would GLADLY perform a gay wedding.

However, I think strategically a federally recognized Civil Union is the best step, strategically.

[rinsd]

25. In theory yes but in practice civil unions have been less than equal.

Not that I am discounting progress made (look at the climate just 4 years ago), I just have come to find the distinction between the two tedious at best.

[Ian David]

33. African-Americans had to be bashed on the head with night sticks to show that separate isn't equal.

I'm afraid that gay people may need to get symbolically "bashed on the head" by the inherently unequal institution of Civil Unions for a while in order to illustrate their plight and get their point across.

For example, just look at what happened in New Jersey with United Parcel Service refusing to recognize Civil Unions as equal to Marriage.

That situation illustrates just how unfair it is, and how separate isn't equal.

I know it is not fair-- and it is not my place-- to say that someone needs to be beaten by "The Inequality Stick" to earn their rights. It's not my place to volunteer people for martyrdom.

But strategically, it may be necessary.

It pains me to say it, but as much as gay people have already suffered in so many ways, it may be necessary for one more trial by fire before the rest of America is ready to take the final step to either Marriage Equality or Civil Unions ONLY for everyone gay or straight.

[rinsd]

51. Sadly I think you are right.

[damonm]

36. Again, please cite.

[Ian David]

38. Here you go:

This is The Gay Rights Movement's "Lunchcounter Moment".

UPS Denies NJ Civil Unions
Highlights Holes In "Disastrous" Laws

Steve Goldstein warned of this moment.

The New Jersey gay activist knew that The Garden State’s civil union laws left too many loopholes, loopholes United Parcel Service (UPS) has used to withhold health benefits from same-sex couples.

One couple had to learn about New Jersey’s legislative glitch the hard way. Gabriael “Nickie” Brazier and her partner Heather Aurand had hoped for coverage, which would save them a few hundred dollars a month. They didn’t get it.

New Jersey Ledger’s Robert Schwaneberg reports:

In its letter denying coverage, UPS said it does provide health benefits to its employees’ spouses, including spouses of the same sex who are married in Massachusetts. But it said New Jersey’s decision to recognize same-sex relationships as civil unions rather than marriages tied its hands.
…
In its letter, UPS said the New Jersey Legislature, in enacting the state’s civil union law, “did not go as far as Massachusetts and afford same-sex couples the ability to marry. Had the New Jersey Legislature done that, you could have added Ms. Aurand as a spouse under the plan.”

The letter concluded that “New Jersey law does not treat civil unions the same as marriages.”

The international courier contends that New Jersey’s civil unions do not qualify as marriage, despite what politicos may say. One of the laws sponsors, Democratic Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo, can’t seem to understand UPS’ rationale, We made it clear through the language and the intent that when it came to issues like this, we fully expected civil-unioned couples would be covered. As an international company, UPS explains that its following federal law - or, at least, federal definitions of marriage. That law, however, gives companies the option of weighing civil unions and marriages equally. The inconsistencies between federal and state laws highlight America’s skewed sense of justice, says Goldstein, director of Garden State Equality:

More:
http://www.queerty.com/ups-denies-nj-civil-unions-20070709/



Also:

Report: NJ Civil Unions Equal “Second-Class Status”

Some American dreams are unraveling in New Jersey. Over two thousands gay men and women have registered for civil unions since the Garden State legalized them last year, but a commemorative study show that civil unions aren’t as protective as some would like to believe:

A state commission report to be released Tuesday — the first anniversary of New Jersey’s civil union law — concludes it falls far short of a state Supreme Court order to give “same-sex couples … the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples who choose to marry.”

“Civil union status is not clear to the general public, which creates a second-class status,” the Civil Union Review Commission says in its report.

Others give harsher assessments.

“The law is just a complete and utter failure,” said Tom Prol, a trustee of the New Jersey State Bar Association. “It’s a failed experiment in discrimination.”

We wonder what Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both of whom toot their civil union supporting horn, will have to say about this one…

<snip>

This certainly isn’t the first time New Jersey’s civil union laws have been criticized. A similar report highlighted flaws last November, just eight months after the allegedly equal regulations went into action. United Parcel Service - otherwise known as UPS - also caused controversy last July when they employed a federal loophole to deny an employees’ the same benefits as their straight colleagues. The company finally folded after Governor Jon Corzine twisted the political screw.

More:
http://www.queerty.com/report-nj-civil-unions-equal-second-class-status-20080217/

[bicentennial_baby]

26. See above

We agree. :)

[rug]

15. Why does he oppose marriage equality?

[Ian David]

18. The United Church of Christ, of which he is a member, SUPPORTS Marriage Equality, BTW. n/t

[Critters2]

27. The national leadership does, and the vast majority of clergy

(and probably most lay people) do. But his own congregation is not open and affirming. Which is a huge disappointment.

[rug]

30. Good for them. Why does he oppose it?

[Ian David]

37. No idea. Maybe he just SAYS he opposes it to keep the Fundies calm? n/t

[rug]

40. You're probably right, Ian.

[msongs]

46. so obama will prostitute his own values to appease righties then?

he is on the record using scriptures to oppose gay marriage.

Msongs

[Ian David]

54. I looked it up in the dictionary, and I think the word you are looking for is "Politics."

Not that I'm happy about it, or even excessively optimistic.

Remember this quote from Darth Cheney:


"People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business, in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into."
Source: CNN.com quoting the Vice President Feb 26, 2004
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Civil_Rights.htm

If that quote from Dick Cheney was the only thing I knew about him, I would have greeted him as a liberator with flowers and chocolates.

However, we all know how it turned out, don't we?

The Daily Show: Lynne Cheney’s Interests
By: Nicole Belle on Thursday, October 11th, 2007 at 5:14 PM - PDT
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/11/the-daily-show-lynne-cheneys-interests/

[Critters2]

67. He wants to be president. nt

[ruggerson]

71. exactly

[LittleClarkie]

85. Why do any of the candidates oppose marriage equality

His answer isn't much different than most of the candidates in the last two elections.

[rug]

98. Yup. I can't wait until we have a candidate who will disavow the old politics.

[LittleClarkie]

99. Oh, we've had candidates. Just no nominees.

Bless his heart, Dennis Kucinich probably will never be our nominee. But he supports gay marriage.

[denem]

49. Civil Unions into Marriage is a three step ladder.

In my former home, Australia, at federal and state levels, marriage is now defined to include permanent (two years or more) heterosexual partnerships. It extends to everything - tax, benefits, even immigration.

The three steps I see are:

1. Establish Civil Unions
2. Pass legislation, that for the purposes of interpretation, marriage includes Civil Unions - blanket provision for all federal statutes.
3. Civil Unions will now be named marriage.

When you get to 3. - it turns the whole 'it's only a name' 180 degrees around against bigotry.

(4. Churches can do what they want to. Have an institution called Holy Matrimony or Sacred Fucking or whatever)

For what it's worth, I think Obama has a tin ear on LGBT human rights.

[Ian David]

55. Sacred Fucking! LOL! I love it! n/t

[Ian David]

89. You forgot Step 5

"If gays get married, the institution of marriage will be destroyed! Societies will crumble! Rivers will run with blood! Nazis will once again ride dinosaurs!" -- Princess Clara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxxy_vs._the_Board_of_Education

[Q3JR4]

57. Not a bad strategy,

when you think about it. There are so many people in this country who see that particular issue through a bias driven religious litmus test (i.e., I'm uncomfortable with you and this verse of the bible says that I should be therefore I can take a moral stance against the kind of person you are).

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that religious arguments (based on which "prophet" you decide to quote) can be taken from either direction, and I'm happy that he's willing to make such arguments from so public a place.

Q3JR4.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

64. and that obscure passage in Romans,

when taken into context of the entire chapter, condemns most forms of sexuality as not right because it distracts the believer from piety. One line about homosexuality, and the rest about heterosexual behavior.

[ruggerson]

68. Why the hell does he cite RELIGION in a civil matter?

This is not a religious issue.

[Critters2]

73. Obama sucking up to Evangelicals. Yeah, what a surprise. nt

[ruggerson]

87. It drives me nuts

This should have nothing to do with religion.

It's a CIVIL issue. Civil marriage. The thing you get at the courthouse.

Why does he keep conflating this with religion? It's right out of the fundy playbook.

[bicentennial_baby]

91. I agree!

:toast:

[ruggerson]

95. You know

I will vote for this guy come hell or high water in November, but I do not like how he treats these issues at all and hopefully he will get tons of pressure to change how he presents them.

[bicentennial_baby]

96. And I promise you that I'll be one of the ones pressuring

However I can. :)

[NMMNG]

106. Because he can get away with it.

Because our effed up society refuses to keep Church and State separate, thereby keeping some citizens permanently second-class.

[Bluerthanblue]

111. Did you even read the article? he was asked by a RELIGOUS preacher

about the quandry that Obama was putting 'them' in-

Obama pointed to the literature this leader regards as sacrosanct, and spoke to HIM that there IS no "quandry"-

"Marriage" is indeed a 'religious' issue- the state shouldn't have the right to tell people who they can love and commit their lives to. The state shouldn't even have the 'right' to determine who one can surrender their 'legal-rights' to.

This is stupid.

peace~

[theboss]

122. It was a question posed by a minister

Religious people see marriage as a religious issue. You can't have this discussion without getting into religion at some point. And once it becomes a religious discussion, it's over.

The idea of "civil unions" is to keep the religious discussion removed from it.

[LadyVT]

100. OMG. Shall we put that Sermon in the constitution, then?!?

[JoFerret]

101. VOMIT

Preachy patronizing panderer.

[Laughing Mirror]

110. He should also urge black church constituents to educate themselves on how South Africa

has handled same-sex marriage in a predominantly black nation. Theirs might even be the basis as a good model to follow for the US, which will eventually have to give us our rights.

[JuniperLea]

113. He should urge ALL "church" constituents...

Not only those who happen to be black.

[yardwork]

123. I agree with Obama about the Sermon on the Mount.

Personally, I think that the government should provide only civil unions for everyone, and let churches decide whether or not to marry people. That would guarantee all civil rights to all couples, gay or straight.

I appreciate Obama recasting the argument in terms of Jesus's words and pointing out that this is more central to Christianity "than an obscure passage in Romans."

[maddiejoan]

126. "I will tell you that I don’t believe in gay marriage,"

Thanks Obama!

yay for UNITY!!!

Sheeesh --can we please keep religion out of the Whitehouse?

Can we do that?