2008 USP(G)ET pt. II: counting the days to 2012 primary thread 1

Calling someone a moron /= they shouldn't care about something.

Does he? I thought he was still pussy-footing around civil unions.

Her complaints are still nonsense either way.

But fuck the realities of politics when they actually have an affect on how you get to live your life.

dude

btw J0hn do you have any evidence for this: "Obama will fund the shit out of people who hate gays while saying nice things about equality" because if you don't then you sound as crazy as the woman who wrote that article.

I can see why a hard-core left culture warrior would think Obama is less than great. He's not a hard-core left culture warrior. That doesn't make him a centrist necessarily, because the axes on which the culture war is presently waged aren't the only ones. Which is to say that Christians are still sorting out how to think about gay marriage. If you're unremittingly hostile to Christianity, then it's likely you won't find Obama's stance sympathetic. But he is not looking to marshall the forces of hate against you, either.

hey dudes check this out
http://yourscene.latimes.com/PHOTOS/LATM/1UserPhotos/369277E.jpg

Does he? I thought he was still pussy-footing around civil unions.

he's said he is cool with it personally and that the best way to achieve equal marriage rights for gays under the law is to let the states pursue civil unions and have the courts fight it out. There is a lengthy argument on some other thread between me and some other folks who had some (to me) fairly insane insistence that the specific word MARRIAGE be applied to gay couples in order to lend their unions culturally legitimate, regardless of whether the law guaranteed them all the same rights as married couples under the term "civil union" (ie, more fun on ILE with semantics). Personally I don't see a more realistic path to legally protecting gay marriage than the one Obama proposes, but I'm sure Morbz or J0hn or someone else here will complain that his stance doesn't go far enough and that he should be proposing a gay marriage constitutional amendment or something.

Aww man, neither "Cledus 'Snowman' Snow" or his trusty sidekick basset "Fred" have their own wiki entries.

er "render their unions" that should be

x-post

anyway my point is to insinuate that Obama is somehow down with homophobia and wants to keep gays in a second-class-citizen sorta arrangement is bullshit.

Obama wants to leave the issue to the states; so does John McCain, except that McCain won't even say the word "gay" aloud for fear of turning into Harvey Fierstein.

I could have SWORN we talked about this on another thread somewhere

I've said this before: as a gay man, I have more trouble with his FISA vote and his acceptance of the Afghanistan-is-the-real-battleground canard.

how is it that once it comes to gay marriage hard-core Dems are all of a sudden really into states' rights as a great solution

however as I have now seen a picture of a basset hound carrying a loaf of bread, I feel way mellower about the whole subject

explain to me the legal rationale that the President/Congress could pursue that would guarantee gay marriage rights in all the states. (hint: there isn't one). This is a legal issue about equal rights, and it will be fought in the courts, no matter what congress and the President do. Seeing as how the states are already the central battleground, what is to be lost by letting their cases make their way up to the Supreme Court?

Shakey that's a tricky view b/c it ends up sounding like

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/img/archive/20_02/RS_20_02_49.jpg

it has nothing to do with legal rationales, I'm sure you're right, it has everything to do with the moral courage (which: isn't fucking much) to say "of course gay men and women should be allowed to get married, what are you, stupid or something" or the more politically palatable/presentable version of that sentiment

"it can't be done, so I'm going to refrain from pointing out that it should be done" is chickenshit

of course gay men and women should be allowed to get married, what are you, stupid or something"

but, Obama has (more or less) said these very things! so wtf

Shakey that's a tricky view b/c it ends up sounding like

lolz yeah the courts had nothing to do with civil rights did they

but as I say, for me it's not a dealbreaker. I'm just pointing out that the position "this is a fucking dealbreaker" is hardly some "O you are hysterical" stuff, and again, since when are we on the left big states-rights fans? A: when it's convenient/when we figure we can trade the votes we'll lose

xpost no, he hasn't.

lol the courts didn't have as much to do with it as fucking LBJ

or Hillary Clinton

this argument came down to the word 'marriage' before and it's religious context

I mean I would hope that it is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that what is needed to ensure the rights of gay couples is a Supreme Court decision recognizing the legitimacy of their claims to equal treatment under the law. The way to get that decision is for a case to work its way through the courts so that a precedent can be established. Then when individual states complain and attempt to avoid compliance, that's when the federal gov't steps in (and lolz sends in the national guard if necessary or whatever)

x-post

if you think LBJ would've had a leg to stand on without Brown vs. the Board of Education you are fucking retarded

good grief. this thread.

No doubt you're right Shakey! The way to not be a huge chickenshit, though, is to say "I think a person has the right to marry whomever he or she loves," not "Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination. I think it is the right balance to strike in this society" (Obama on gay marriage) = where "balance" equals the balance between an individual's right to live as he or she sees fit vs. a Christian's right to impose his/her values on others with the help of the State behind him

dudes though seriously I'm just kinda flappin my fuckin gums here, I'm constitutionally incapable of abandoning an argument, I know this politically is a non-starter, it's just an objection in principle, nothin to see here move on

oh you're talking about school desegregation! but that's nothing like full equality, is it? I am fucking retarded btw

a Christian's right to impose his/her values on others with the help of the State behind him

there is nothing in Obama's statement that implies this viewpoint

oh you're talking about school desegregation! but that's nothing like full equality, is it? I am fucking retarded btw

dude school desegregation provided the legal rationale for full equality. come on this is US civics 101 here

Actually what Obama's doing is more radical than you are giving him credit for. Basically he's saying is fuck the word marriage, let the looneys and the churches keep it and do whatever the hell they want with it. Everyone'll have civil unions and your pastor/congregation can do what they want. Even though I called it "pussy-footing" above, I actually this way of framing the debate is not only pretty clever, but pretty sensible.

also it appropriately respects the proper separation between church and state, distinguishing between the LEGAL rights everyone should have as "married" couples from whatever religious hokum bullshit people hang on the term.

Actually what Obama's doing is more radical than you are giving him credit for. Basically he's saying is fuck the word marriage, let the looneys and the churches keep it and do whatever the hell they want with it.

yeah, I would be quite happy if I believed this, but I don't.

and Shakey let me know when Obama's position actually has something to do with stripping the word marriage of its legal repercussions and leaving it to the same sort of legal status as baptism, confirmation, etc

lol the courts didn't have as much to do with it as fucking LBJ

― it's a great breakup balllad sung by Bill Champlin (Euler), Friday, September 19, 2008 6:45 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

wtf

The way Alex defines Obama's position, Obama's not too different from John Kerry.

part of Obama's slipperiness on the issue is that he hasn't been pinned down on what "marriage" means.

jesus h christ

basically the problem with Obama is that he's a fucking constitutional law professor

hahaha lolz

xp those fucking guys

and Shakey let me know when Obama's position actually has something to do with stripping the word marriage of its legal repercussions

when your legal argument is that "civil unions" should guarantee all the rights traditionally conferred by the state to "marriages" this is essentially the end result. so wtf J0hn.

Look, public opinion's moving in our favor. It's been five years since Lawrence v. Texas. Watch momentum pick up when Californians vote against the ballot initiative in November.

re: public opinion, the fact that it's a public conversation = the battle has already been fought, and the good guys have won, and the rest is just playing out the string (though it may take a while)...

I should keep you guys on retainer as my lawyers.

I will donate 10k to the Obama campaign if he makes "you know, weddings are already pretty gay" the public face of his position on this issue

― J0hn D., Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:16 PM (3 months ago)

and btw we already have a thread for this: Marriage Protection Kit

haha that reminds me some fuckhead came to my in-laws house in San Diego with his pregnant wife and young son in tow, asking if we supported the gay marriage ban initiative on the ballot. My in-law was polite in telling him "no fucking way" but it really got under his skin. Personally I was wondering who was funding the polling and why.

x-post

I am terribly sorry I missed that thread.

then I thought "man, what sort of fucked up family outing is it when you're bringing your at least 6-months preggers wife and your kid walking door-to-door in 95% heat to make sure there's no queers in your neighborhood"

x-post