Obama not on board with gay marriage?

[Infinite Hope]

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid39485.asp

Here's part of the article:

"As a supposedly bipartisan politician who understands and reconciles opposing views, and a non-doctrinal Christian whose personal identity and life journey shaped his lens to include those on the margins, why then, I ask, is this presidential hopeful not united with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer voters on the issue of marriage equality?

“I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided,” Obama wrote in his recent memoir, The Audacity of Hope.

But Obama’s audacity is not only his unwillingness to support the issue, but also his misunderstanding and misuse of the term “gay marriage.” The terminology “gay marriage” not only stigmatizes and stymies our efforts for marriage equality, but it also suggests that LGBT people’s marriages are or would be wholly different from those of heterosexuals, thus altering its landscape, if not annihilating the institution of marriage entirely.

But Obama’s remarks in a recent interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press spoke somewhat encouragingly about granting LGBTQ couples not marriage equality but certainly civil union rights.

However, having lived outside of America during its turbulent decades of the Jim Crow era and legal segregation, Obama may not know on a visceral and lived experienced level what those decades had been like for African-Americans.

But he ought to know, as a civil rights attorney, that granting LGBTQ Americans only the right to civil unions violates our full constitutional right as well as reinstitutionalizes the 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson. As a result of that decision, the “separate but equal” doctrine became the rule of law until it was struck down in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.

However, Obama doesn’t understand that regardless of one’s gender expression or sexual orientation, we want equal status to be institutionalized within our marriages as well.

Although not a cradle Christian, Christianity became Obama’s newfound religious identity late in his life. And his affinity to conservative Christian beliefs not only informs his decision on the issue of marriage equality, but it also solidifies his decision about us in a community of believers like himself."

[Buzz Clik]

1. As a demographic, African-American males frequently oppose gay marriage.

This came out in 2004 in exit polling. When African-American men crossed lines and voted against Kerry or other Democrats, their opposition to gay marriage was near the top of their defining issues.

It should not be an issue at the Federal level, so I'm guessing it would be irrelevant if he were elected.

[Ian David]

16. Unless you look only at college-educated African-Americans

College-educated African-Americans were nearly as supportive of Marriage Equality as their college-educated white counterparts.

[TaleWgnDg]

19. Not too often do I agree w/ Karl Rove . . . but here he's on the money . . .

.
Not too often do I agree w/ Karl Rove . . . but here he's on the money . . . except of course for the attempted tag disclaimer at the end, eh.
________________________________________

"As people do better, they start
voting like Republicans ... unless
they have too much education and
vote Democratic, which proves there
can be too much of a good thing."
- Karl Rove (GWBush's chief
political strategist)
http://www.bushisms.com
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/
http://americacomingtogether.com/
http://www.truthaboutgeorge.com/bushisms/
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/
http://www.10forchange.org/
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/bushisms.htm
________________________________________

[jesus_of_suburbia]

47. My black boyfriend in college told me he had it worse than me..

He always told me (I'm white from a Southern Baptist background) that he had it even worse than me.


Don't know if it's true or not, but he said homophobia in the black community is worse than in the white community. My dear friend (ok, a faghag) told me the same thing, and she's from NY!

[jesus_of_suburbia]

48. By the way, my experience has been that black females

have been better to me than anyone else as a white gay male.


I have tons of other friends of various races too, but I've never had a HORRIBLE experience when I came out to a black female.

[goddess40]

51. that seems sad but true

my friend and I went out for breakfast last week and we were in the booth next to a black family talking about gays. The father said he couldn't deal with gays for biblical reasons or any other reason - it was just wrong. Listening to the son back peddle (we just heard the dad's opinion as we sat down so we don't know what prompted it) and apologize for steering the conversation to the topic of gays made me feel sad for this kid. IF he was feeling out his dad for a future revelation about his sexual identity his dad slammed the door in his face and tripled locked it. The harm that narrow minded people do without so much as a second thought astounds me sometimes.

[bowens43]

2. There is no way anyone running for president

is going to say they are in favor of gay marraige.

[FreeState]

3. Dennis kucinich?

Last I checked he ran for president and plans on running again. He is pro marriage and never hides it.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/#key07

7. Right-to-Choose, Privacy, and Civil Rights

...Lesbians and gays must be afforded complete equality throughout society, including in marriage...

[bluedawg12]

38. Last checked Kucinich is not President.

The point being: it's not about running for president it's about getting elected for President.


Can someone openly pro-gay marriage get elected president?

Maybe, we get a pro-fairness proponent, quietly elect him/her, and then work on it from the top down for a change- intstead of being cut off from the top down?

The gay community has much work to do to help the nation undersatnd our position and de-mystify the lying wind bags who quote junk science and theo-fascist views.

[bliss_eternal]

4. Any candidate that doesn't support equality for ALL

members of society, won't get my vote. :)

[Ian David]

17. I agree! It's not a "Single-Issue Vote," it's a litmus test for bigotry

I would not vote for someone who says, "I am proud to have voted for protecting the traditional whites-only washroom, but I think it is divisive and unnecessary to amend The Constitution to define whites-only washrooms as being only for those who are not black."

That's might not necessarily because washroom facilities are the most important issue to me, personally, but because anyone who would take the position above is a bigot.

Similarly, I will not vote for someone who says, "I was proud to vote for the DOMA bill defending the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman, but I think it is divisive and unnecessary to amend The Constitution..."

And anyone who says that Civil Unions are okay, but Civil Marriage is not, is one of four things. They're either:
a) Bigoted.
b) Don't believe in The Separation of Church and State.
c) Uninformed about what the differences truly are, and what's at stake.
d) Engaging in a misguided attempt to "compromise" or be "bi-partisan."

But here's an idea to put out there.

If marriage is a "sacred" establishment of religion, then the government has no legal right to make a law respecting it.

So, get government out of the marriage business.

From now on, the government should conduct, regulate and recognize ONLY Civil Unions for everyone-- gay and straight.

What religious organizations do will be called "Marriage," and will carry no legal weight whatsoever.

What governments do will be called a "Civil Unions," and it will be done without regard to gender.

Define a Civil Union as "An exclusive union between two consenting adult human beings no more closely related than second cousins who pledge to take personal responsibility for one another."

ALMOST all that needs be done is to go through the federal and state constitutions and general laws, and change the word "Marriage" to "Civil Union," remove references to Man or Woman or Husband or Wife, and voila-- everyone is equal! Civil Unions for everyone!

[bliss_eternal]

22. .........!

:hi::hug:

[sui generis]

34. isn't it funny the people who are so glib about reminding us it's just a word

are the very last people to consider changing that word to describe their own matrimony. If it's just a word . . . then let's just have Same Gender Unions and Opposite Gender Unions. A while later we'll get to Mixed Chromosome Unions and Gender Reassigned Unions, or we could just call it marriage between two consenting adults.

Yes, anything less is bigotry and bigotry is like being pregnant or being dead. You can't just be a little bit pregnant or a little bit dead.

[IntravenousDemilo]

36. Of course, in typical American fashion, the Canadian example is ignored or discounted.

Just as an example, our universal health care system is derided and condemned as dangerous by right-wingnuts in Congress, as well as by people like Bill "Goebbels" O'Reilly, I think solely for the reason that it's "Canadian" and we're all a bunch of "fucking commies".

Well, we have equal MARRIAGE here now, and it's not going away. A recent poll said a substantial majority of Canadians either don't want to open up the discussion again, or couldn't care less. If it can work here in a country that's culturally similar to yours, it should be able to work there, too.

It's really frustrating for us to see you not following a perfectly good, workable example that is sitting right on your doorstep. Fuckin' just DO IT, eh?

[sui generis]

45. ey?

quit typing with a canadian accent. You're typing your oos funny.

:P

[pnwmom]

5. I'm not sure the analogy with the Plessy case applies.

It isn't possible to have separate but equal school systems. But wouldn't it be possible for Federal and state law to provide for "civil unions" for gays and lesbians with the exact same benefits and responsibilities as "marriage"?

[Infinite Hope]

6. Important question...

Separate but equal also applied to drinking fountains and bathrooms that could be equal. The idea in applying this to gay marriage would be that while the rights are the same, by creating a distinctly separate category, it maintains the scorn of society and/or the view that, while they command the same rights, they are different and lesser.

[pnwmom]

7. I think that if we had civil unions, with the same legal status

under Federal and State law as marriage, the issue would be moot within a decade. Few people would care anymore. Gays and lesbians who wanted to could "get married" in a church (as they already can), and wear wedding rings, and refer to their spouses.

Getting federally recognized civil unions is the foot in the door. Once the door is opened, it's only a matter of time.

Young people by and large already don't care -- or they support gay marriage. It will take a little longer for the rest of us to be brought on board, but I think a civil union equivalent to marriage would be a huge step in that direction.

You aren't going to force people to stop scorning gay marriage by shoving it down their throats. Step one, in my opinion, is to get more people used to the idea that gay people want committed, supportive relationships. They want someone to love, just as straight people do. We can provide for that with "civil unions" just as well as with a union called "marriage," IMO.

[ruggerson]

10. Civil rights historically

have moved one step at a time. While the word "marriage" carries important symbolic weight, I totally agree with you that the rights and privileges afforded under the law are the important thing, and if that can be achieved now by calling them "civil unions" then we should get that done. "Marriage" is the goal, and it will happen, but we are shooting ourselves in the foot if we refuse the rights and privileges which can help so many families right now.

[sui generis]

27. but that's delusion rugger lad

civil unions are inherently different in that no state has to recognize them in the same context as marriage. It's still a state's rights issue and nothing determined at the state level will give us FEDERAL marriage equality.

The better rhetorical argument is why do we allow interracial marriage? Why don't we call them interracial unions?

And of course, if interracial unions are unacceptable then why are "civil" unions acceptable, but only for gays?

[mitchtv]

11. I tend to agree with you

However those so called civil unions had better provide tangible relief. Also, Insisting on rights is not " shoving it down people's throats" Now that's freeper talk

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. "Civil unions" with the same legal status as marriage

Would, by definition, BE marriage and not "civil unions."

Unholy crap, are we going to have to do yet another round of explaining why "civil unions" is nothing more than sugar coated bigotry?

[ruggerson]

21. That's the point

the bigots main concern is the word "marriage." If it is politically impossible now to get all the rights and call them "marriage", but politically doable to get all the rights and call them "civil unions," who in their right mind would metaphorically stamp their feet and scream that they don't want civil rights and privileges unless they're called a certain name?

Seems to me, since the name "civil unions" draws so much more support, why not push for a federal civil unions bill, get inheritance, taxation and social security survivorship rights and all the state rights attached to marriage, and then go get married in the church of your choice?

I understand that the two separate names implies that our unions are somehow different and inferior to theirs, but getting 7/8 of a loaf doesn't mean we stop fighting for the word "marriage." It just means that while we continue to fight for the word and for full marriage equality, our families are a whole lot safer, physically, emotionally and economically with the protections that civil unions will afford us.

[iverglas]

28. now that's a funny idea worthy of elaboration!

Seems to me, since the name "civil unions" draws so much more support, why not push for a federal civil unions bill, get inheritance, taxation and social security survivorship rights and all the state rights attached to marriage, and then go get married in the church of your choice?

And since it's the religious element of the whole thing that gets the right wing all fired up, wouldn't that just rot their socks?

The parties would have got their legal rights *and* their marriage. Ha, eat that.

But I'm still on the side that says it's insufficient -- although that doesn't mean that it's not an acceptable step on the road of progress. Same-sex couples did get civil unions first in Quebec, e.g., before the courts here in Canada started striking down provincial laws under which same-sex marriage was being denied.

Both the Massachusetts court and the Canadian courts that have considered the issue have said the same thing: the issue is human dignity, and the fact that denying equal treatment is a denial of the worth and dignity of the individual. Oh, and the South African constitutional court has said it too:

http://hrw.org/lgbt/pdf/s_africa_sodomy_1998.pdf

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2000 (2) SA 1 CC

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

... It is noteworthy how the Canadian Supreme Court has, in the development of its equality jurisprudence under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter, come to see the central purpose of its equality guarantee as the protection and promotion of human dignity.<50>

42. In the Sodomy case this Court dealt with the seriously negative impact that societal discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation has had, and continues to have, on gays and their same-sex partnerships, concluding that gay men are a permanent minority in society and have suffered in the past from patterns of disadvantage. Although the main focus of that judgment was on the criminalisation of sodomy and on other proscriptions of erotic expression between men, the conclusions regarding the minority status of gays and the patterns of discrimination to which they have been and continue to be subject are also applicable to lesbians. Society at large has, generally, accorded far less respect to lesbians and their intimate relationships with one another than to heterosexuals and their relationships. The sting of past and continuing discrimination against both gays and lesbians is the clear message that it conveys, namely, that they, whether viewed as individuals or in their same-sex relationships, do not have the inherent dignity and are not worthy of the human respect possessed by and accorded to heterosexuals and their relationships. This discrimination occurs at a deeply intimate level of human existence and relationality. It denies to gays and lesbians that which is foundational to our Constitution and the concepts of equality and dignity, which at this point are closely intertwined, namely that all persons have the same inherent worth and dignity as human beings, whatever their other differences may be. The denial of equal dignity and worth all too quickly and insidiously degenerates into a denial of humanity and leads to inhuman treatment by the rest of society in many other ways. This is deeply demeaning and frequently has the cruel effect of undermining the confidence and sense of self-worth and self-respect of lesbians and gays.

43. Similar views, with which I agree, were expressed in Vriend v Alberta, where Cory J expressed himself thus:

“It is easy to say that everyone who is just like ‘us’ is entitled to equality. Everyone finds it more difficult to say that those who are ‘different’ from us in some way should have the same equality rights that we enjoy. Yet so soon as we say any ... group is less deserving and unworthy of equal protection and benefit of the law all minorities and all of ... society are demeaned. It is so deceptively simple and so devastatingly injurious to say that those who are handicapped or of a different race, or religion, or colour or sexual orientation are less worthy.”

_______________

<50> In Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1999) 170 DLR (4th) 1, Iacobucci J, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court stated the following at paras 52-4:

“... (I)n the articulation of the purpose of s. 15(1) ... a focus is quite properly placed upon the goal of assuring human dignity by the remedying of discriminatory treatment.
....
(T)he equality guarantee in s. 15(1) is concerned with the realization of personal autonomy and self-determination. Human dignity means that an individual or group feels self-respect and self-worth. It is concerned with physical and psychological integrity and empowerment. Human dignity is harmed by unfair treatment premised upon personal traits or circumstances which do not relate to individual needs, capacities, or merits. It is enhanced by laws which are sensitive to the needs, capacities, and merits of different individuals, taking into account the context underlying their differences.
....
The equality guarantee in s. 15(1) of the Charter must be understood and applied in light of the above understanding of its purpose. The overriding concern with protecting and promoting human dignity in the sense just described infuses all elements of the discrimination analysis.”

(other footnotes omitted)

In other words: separate ain't equal.

[sui generis]

29. no rugger the bigots' main concern is that we exist

it's not marriage, and it's not unions, it's that we exist. Even if we got them to agree to civil unions, they would still be angry that we got to share our federal pensions, benefits, etc.

The word "civil union" is their straw man, not ours. They will hate us no matter what equal marriage ends up being called, but it's not equal if we have to take "baby steps", when we are clearly not babies.

Could you imagine if they told interracial couples they needed to settle for baby steps?

[ruggerson]

37. Well that's true

they hate us for just being. I do, however, think any civil rights struggle has to lock in its gains and keep moving forward. If you look at the history of african americans in this country, their rights came in surges, over decades, not all at once. I, for one, would rather have full federal civil unions with all the attendent rights of marriage, than nothing at all, WHILE we're still fighting for equal marriage rights.

[sui generis]

39. well of course not throwing that away

but if that is the goal then we can't ever do better than that. It really is up to us to convince people that we're adults and we make decisions about our own lives. Their decisions about our lives, what we should call ourselves, how we should comport ourselves, whatever, are neither solicited nor welcome.

So having them "grant" us the right to consider ourselves unioned would still leave a bitter taste in my mouth, rights and all. Wouldn't turn it down, but the ramifications of it mean that we would always remain separate, if equal.

[TechBear_Seattle]

40. I propose a much easier solution

Since the bigots are the ones getting their panties in a bunch, make THEM get civil unions and leave marriage -- with all its attendant rights, protections, privileges and responsibilities -- for everyone else. Since they are the ones demanding "separate but equal," it makes sense to me that they should be the ones to get it. And, get the many liabilities and shortcomings of non-marriage.

[sui generis]

46. I totally agree

The should have the option to choose "righteous opposite gender baby-makin' marriage", from which we should naturally be excluded on the basis of gender, OR civil marriage like everyone else.

Let's float a bill to allow two kinds of marriage. Regular marriage for all consenting adults, and bigot marriage for all consenting bigots.

I mean, it's just a name right? Everything else is the same.

[mitchtv]

18. very unweildy to accomplish

as there are1100 or so rights and responsibilities to account for. The soution is simple however. The Govt. gets out of the marriage business and only provides Civil Unions. If you need a marriage get it at your local church. Matrimony is a religius concept, as far as Govt is concerned It is a legal civil contract.

[sui generis]

32. what about interracial unions?

I think we should have separate but equal unions for interracial couples too. Of course, they'll have all the same rights and responsibilities . . . and the water coming out of the coloreds fountain will still be water, and the seats in the back of the bus work just as well as the ones in the front.

It's not American, or rather, it's all too American, and it's just not acceptable. Nobody should get to tell us what we can call ourselves, and if it's just a name, then why don't they give us "equal marriage" and change their holy rites of government unioning to "Hetero Unions" if it's just a name?

:shrug:

[Zensea]

8. What the hell does this sentence mean?

"However, having lived outside of America during its turbulent decades of the Jim Crow era and legal segregation, Obama may not know on a visceral and lived experienced level what those decades had been like for African-Americans."

One, he lived outside the US for 4 years (from the ages of 2 to 6).
Two, he was born in 1961. The Jim Crow era basically started coming to an end with Brown in 1954.
Anyone who lived in the United States who was born in 1961 or later didn't live during the Jim Crow era.

This is either sloppy writing in terms of research or an unjustified dig.
When I see stuff like that it tends to make me discount whatever points the writer is making, however justified, because I immediately mistrust the author's objectivity and credence.

[sui generis]

30. it just corks me though to hear people say

that just because we aren't or weren't slaves and just because you can't tell us apart by our skin color and just because we weren't treated as badly as Jim Crow era we are not fighting a civil rights battle.

I would reply that most people who say that were never slaves themselves nor subject to Jim Crow laws, and the ones that were and have been are usually on our side.

Isn't that ironic?

[IntravenousDemilo]

9. Maybe Obama believes "equal rights" applies only to himself and his own oppressed social group.

That's what it looks like to me. Same with Clinton -- equal rights for women is all well and good, but equal rights for homosexuals, well, that's just too icky. So once their groups have managed to climb up into the equal rights treehouse, they see nothing wrong with pulling the rope ladder up behind them, and solidarity be damned.

If even your liberals are conservative, your country has a long, long, long, long way to go.

[sui generis]

33. once again, we end up squawking about religion

why???????

Can't we get someone who has real morality instead of borrowed morality? I am a Barack detractor. He can't win, he shouldn't win and he shouldn't be running for a hundred reasons before we ever get to gay issues.

But on issues that concern my family, Barack better be supporting us without reservation or excuse, or he'd better be looking to replace our votes.

[IntravenousDemilo]

35. Sorry, I'm confused. I never mentioned religion. Do you mean this metaphorically? n/m

[sui generis]

41. sorry - to clarify

we have a candidate for public office talking about his faith. I frakking hate that. Talk about issues man! If he can't see the forest or the trees for thumping his religion, I don't want him in there. The administration of government should have NOTHING to do with faith, at all. Ultimately government is about ensuring our safety, welfare, health, and foreign policy insofar as it protects our interests. If our values as a people say we should go beyond simple interests and provide assistance to the needy and sick, housing for the abandoned elderly, and foreign policy that supports a single standard human rights, then that is also what we administer. For all Americans. For all.

He clearly couldn't arrive at All Americans Are Equal without passing judgement on gays though. He's willing to revisit his judgement only because it might hurt his chances of election, not because he believes it is the correct thing to do.

That's not leadership. I've heard the guy speak at length. He's a lousy speaker. He's got some uphill skill building to do before he's ready to be a candidate.

[IntravenousDemilo]

43. Oh, it was about HIS "faithspeak". Well, then, I agree with you. I thought you meant me.

He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice, which to me is absolutely unforgivable. I suspect it was not so much because she's remotely qualified to be SOS, but because, well, you know...

[sui generis]

44. He's just not ready

Ultimately, what makes a leader worthy of a leadership position is that they consistently make the correct decision more often than the average person given the same sources and information.

So in a nutshell, experience counts, as does doing the right thing instinctively. Barack strikes me as an opportunist, and quite ordinary in his achievements and in his choices. Hearing him speak with the same wishywashy apologias and conversational dissembling tells me that most of the time he either doesn't know what he's talking about or he's trying to evade a direct and honest answer to the question.

We don't need another president like that.

It's not to say he won't change or suddenly grow some leaderly chops but if he's going to have any kind of a shot at winning he's going to have to work on more than just presentation and get to substance.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. None of the other Democratic presidential contenders give a rat's ass about equal marriage

Why should Obama be any different?

[cboy4]

13. It's ironic that equal rights for gay people don't play as well

as a whole in the African American community as they should.

I've had discussions about this with black friends who talk about how frustrated they are that, of all human beings, people of color should certainly know better that discrimination/bigotry/racism of any kind is unconscionable.

Homophobia is particularly a problem among Inner City males.

Therefore, it's not surprising black Democratic politicians like Obama and Harold Ford Jr., to name a couple, are opposed to gay marriage.

That's not to say everyone is. I personally know a lot of black people who are pro gay equal rights, despite culture that attempts to steer them otherwise.

I don't know for sure, but I bet you anything Charlie Rangel is probably pro gay marriage. I know he was adamantly opposed to the constitutional ban. I just can't say enough concerning how much I admire him. He sure has guts.

Anyway, just to be fair to Obama (whom I will not most likely be supporting in a Democratic primary if he runs) - - - I can't imagine ANY '08 Democratic presidential candidate will be supporting gay marriage or even supporting civil unions...whether he or she is black or white.

It'll be the back row of the bus again for LGBTQ's.

But then again, we're used to the Democrats seating us there, aren't we?

[Smarmie Doofus]

20. Ford and Obama are 'Inner City males"?

>>>>Homophobia is particularly a problem among Inner City males.

Therefore, it's not surprising black Democratic politicians like Obama and Harold Ford Jr., to name a couple, are opposed to gay marriage.>>>>>

News to me if they are.

[cboy4]

23. That was horribly worded on my part . . .

:blush:

My point is homophobia is a problem within a portion of the black community (particularly within the inner cities because of cultural issues), and it's not necessarily surprising black politicians are opposed to gay marriage....even if they may not be from the inner city.

Hopefully that makes better sense.

[Smarmie Doofus]

24. Don't jump off that bridge just yet....

.... I re-read it and your actual meaning is now clearer to me.

[TaleWgnDg]

14. Hhhhmmmm. Obama is a politician. Obama is looking for a

.

Hhhhmmmm. Obama is a politician. Obama is looking for a middle ground. In doing so, he cannot appease both sides.

Either one is FOR or AGAINST same sex marriage. And, that's M A R R I A G E, not so-called "civil unions" which can be this or that according to the whims and vicissitudes of each state legislature, not apply to federal law, and not be recognized in foreign countries. Yup. Either one is FOR total and unequivocal civil marriage rights for gays, or one is AGAINST it. It legally and psychologically affects gays, their children, their children's children, their partners, extended families, and families of origin. There's is no middle ground as Obama is attempting to posit. PERIOD.

Marriage and all its legal benefits and obligations is a legal matter. A state-to-state legal matter. A federal legal matter. An international legal matter.

It is not a religious matter. Again, marriage is a civil legal contract granted by each state legislature and enforced (or dissolved) in courts of law across America, unlike religion which is a separate entity under our constitution. Don't "confuse" the two.

It's the rightwing religious institutions who have sown the seeds of confusion, hate, and politics against same sex marriage. It is they -- rightwing religion -- that has sown the seeds and pruned the fruit of the trees of fear across America. If rightwing religions don't want to legally marry gays, fine. No problem. Religions cannot be forced to marry gays. Those religions may discriminate against gays. That's what our freedom of religion (first amendment) is all about. However, those very same rightwing religions should stay the hell out of our state and federal laws! Stop forcing their religion upon us all by changing our laws!

Shall Obama bite this hateful fruit? Shall we trust Obama? Why?

___________________________

edited to add: Who am I? A family law attorney who has had many GLBTs and/or their children as clients.

.

[Tyo]

25. Exactly. I don't want an appeaser or a fence-straddler

I thought that we were the ones with principles.

By the way, thanks for explaining the civil vs religious thing so well. I've been pounding on this forever it seems like. It's not a complicated concept but so many folks seem unable (or unwilling) to grasp it.

[TaleWgnDg]

31. You are welcome . . . here's more

at http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TaleWgnDg/3

and here at http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TaleWgnDg/5

I've written others but why bore you?

[sui generis]

26. mush mouth. We don't need another mush mouth.

If you don't believe in marriage equality, you can't be a leader on the topic. It's that simple.

Obama, you just lost my vote. Go sit next to Hillary until you grow up and can learn to be a leader instead of a lawyer.

And about your vaunted christianity Obama -- WHO CARES. Government is not about having a poleaxe to enforce your religious views on my family. It's about administration. Please, feel free to call on DU if you think you don't understand what government should be FOR instead of AGAINST.

[ronnykmarshall]

42. Wabt youb talk aboutb?

[election_2004]

49. I'm glad he supports civil unions, at least

Hopefully he will take the position that they should be present in all 50 states.

[rusty fender]

50. Obama not on board with gay marriage

Do you remember when Colin Powell was opposed to Gays in the
military? Same thing with Obama. If he's not for equal rights
for all, then we shouldn't vote for him.