I disagree, we NEED every vote
The point is to make marriage equality NOT as a choice it currently is
Example: if 'supersize' is not optional, then McDonald will not have to go through the whole controversy
Last edited:
Oh, no, I'm so conflicted! -- Dick Cheney (again) supports gay marriage....
- Thread starter D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse
- Start date
I disagree, we NEED every vote
The point is to make marriage equality NOT as a choice it currently is
Example: if 'supersize' is not optional, then McDonald will not have to go through the whole controversy
sparky11point5
Sexy Member
Sklar,
I think that this is a practical point about objectives and self interest. I regret if it offends you, but marriage equality is simply not my highest personal priority. Politics is sometimes about choices, since it requires getting a broad section of people to agree with you. Re-read what I wrote in my post -- "if you force me to choose". In other words, fight for marriage equality, and I will support it. Yet, if politically you 'demand' a solution which will scorch the earth for any other progressive goal over the next four years, I cannot support you.
Self interest over principle? Perhaps. Yet, I think it is the political reality that will eventually deliver marriage equality. Not wishful thinking that any national politician such as Obama would bet everything, everything on one polarizing issue. This is really what I objected to -- your complaint that Obama could solve this immediately, "if he wanted to".
Also, I suggest that you need straight progressives in states holding marriage equality referendums like California simply because of arithmetic. How do you get 51% any other way?
Sparky
I think that this is a practical point about objectives and self interest. I regret if it offends you, but marriage equality is simply not my highest personal priority. Politics is sometimes about choices, since it requires getting a broad section of people to agree with you. Re-read what I wrote in my post -- "if you force me to choose". In other words, fight for marriage equality, and I will support it. Yet, if politically you 'demand' a solution which will scorch the earth for any other progressive goal over the next four years, I cannot support you.
Self interest over principle? Perhaps. Yet, I think it is the political reality that will eventually deliver marriage equality. Not wishful thinking that any national politician such as Obama would bet everything, everything on one polarizing issue. This is really what I objected to -- your complaint that Obama could solve this immediately, "if he wanted to".
Also, I suggest that you need straight progressives in states holding marriage equality referendums like California simply because of arithmetic. How do you get 51% any other way?
Sparky
give me an example a progressive goal you need other's support in exchange for your support of marriage equality
QUID PRO QUO as usual
Sklar
Superior Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Posts
- 1,651
- Media
- 25
- Likes
- 3,634
- Points
- 368
- Location
- Everett, Washington, US
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Hey Sparky, forgive me for modifying you post for the two sentences that I wanted out of it.
First of I do want to thank you for at least being honest with your views. It's very refreshing.
Second of all, I'm not offended. More like flabergasted than anything else.
I hope you're have a great day,
Sklar
sparky11point5
Sexy Member
It's not really a quid pro quo, Sexx, I am not seeking to trade anything. Again, my point is that political progress towards marriage can be made in several ways. I would want this to happen in a way that does not create a political environment that precludes other important goals.
I think an attempt by the Federal government to institute marriage equality would probably fail. (Will described above the options.) It would also lead to such a long, acrimonious and partisan fight that it would take away any ability to pass meaningful financial services reform or health care reform.
Sparky
I think an attempt by the Federal government to institute marriage equality would probably fail. (Will described above the options.) It would also lead to such a long, acrimonious and partisan fight that it would take away any ability to pass meaningful financial services reform or health care reform.
Sparky
sparky11point5
Sexy Member
All fair, brother 
Yet, I am surprised that you are surprised. Everyone has different political priorities. Although it is offensive that gays and lesbians are treated as second class citizens with respect to marriage, I am also very concerned about the economy, public education, health care, and a range of other issues that affect millions of people. I think that the progressive agenda should include all these issues.
You originally complained about the lack of action by Obama. Will pointed out the real difficulties with a federal solution. I think my point is another aspect -- Obama wants to achieve other goals, even if he favors some solution (i.e. civil unions).
This is not really about number of people, right versus wrong, but political tactics. I think we need to be realistic, and not just complain that Obama has not done something we want. (I feel similarly on torture, btw.)
Yet, I am surprised that you are surprised. Everyone has different political priorities. Although it is offensive that gays and lesbians are treated as second class citizens with respect to marriage, I am also very concerned about the economy, public education, health care, and a range of other issues that affect millions of people. I think that the progressive agenda should include all these issues.
You originally complained about the lack of action by Obama. Will pointed out the real difficulties with a federal solution. I think my point is another aspect -- Obama wants to achieve other goals, even if he favors some solution (i.e. civil unions).
This is not really about number of people, right versus wrong, but political tactics. I think we need to be realistic, and not just complain that Obama has not done something we want. (I feel similarly on torture, btw.)
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Politic is all about trading, and marriage equality is not a partisan fight, it is ONLY made to look like that
Unfortunately it still is a fight within the Lefties
There are plenty other issues that will take attention away from finance and or health care reform, why not this one?
and Roe vs Wade of course
I believe Cheney. There were no tricks here. He has a lesbian daughter. He probably is a devoted parent who was all about family values and then after some tulmultuous years realized ala Archie Bunker that his daughter loves women and is not going to change and that it isn't something she is going to try and hide away like that Lennon song about Brian Epstein.
He made anti-gay statements in the past probably because he did not want to dissillusion Bush supporters. In spite of what Bush bashers think, they do exist.
That said, he is still darth vader. Just because a politician does some things good does not mean they have an overall good plan for humanity.
Adolf Hitler did amazing things for animal rights. Nazi Germany remains the government that has done the most for animals.
All fair, brother
Yet, I am surprised that you are surprised. Everyone has different political priorities. Although it is offensive that gays and lesbians are treated as second class citizens with respect to marriage, I am also very concerned about the economy, public education, health care, and a range of other issues that affect millions of people. I think that the progressive agenda should include all these issues.
You originally complained about the lack of action by Obama. Will pointed out the real difficulties with a federal solution. I think my point is another aspect -- Obama wants to achieve other goals, even if he favors some solution (i.e. civil unions).
This is not really about number of people, right versus wrong, but political tactics. I think we need to be realistic, and not just complain that Obama has not done something we want. (I feel similarly on torture, btw.)
I agree. I also don't believe for a minute that Obama doesn't actually support gay marriage or at least the extension of full and equal rights to gay couples. Both he and Michele are far too enlightened. However, it's an issue he can't afford to risk just at this moment in light of the more pressing problems the country is facing. Give it time, though. Give it time.
sparky11point5
Sexy Member
Thanks, (the smart) Nick, your opinion counts with me, dude.
The best approach to achieve marriage equality remains coalition-building and state-by-state progress, not petulance.
I will never understand these Log Cabin republicans anyway. Who would want to live in a cabin with someone like (the reality-challenged) Nick4444?
The best approach to achieve marriage equality remains coalition-building and state-by-state progress, not petulance.
I will never understand these Log Cabin republicans anyway. Who would want to live in a cabin with someone like (the reality-challenged) Nick4444?
sparky & Nick8:
I'm not sure what some of these posters want Obama to do. He doesn't have a magic wand to change state laws or people's minds. Presidents have nothing to do with gay marriage - unless he wants to propose a federal constitutional amendment.
Bush tried a constitutional amendment against gay marriage --- both houses of Congress need to muster up a two-thirds majority (and that's the easy part; after that, 75% of the states have to ratify the bill). Bush could not even do the easy part of getting a bill passed in Congess even when he had republican majorities.
(We got great speeches on the Senate floor, though, debating the issue. I remember former senator Rick Santorum compared gay sex to "man-on-dog" sex... then arguing that, what's next? A man marrying his goat?)
"Don't ask, don't tell" is a federal issue. Obama could insert himself into that topic.
The U.S. Supreme Court could insert itself into the gay marriage debate. But I'm not sure I'd want a case taken up just yet. I have a feeling all the conservatives - Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts - would vote against it. And we'd then have to pick up all of the remaining votes.
With reference to black and white marriage, there was a whole series of precedents. As far back as 1883, in "Pace v. Alabama", the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that convicting an Alabama couple for having interraical sex did not violate the 14th Amendment. -- So, interracial sex was a felony. Though adultery was only a misdemeanor as long as it was done within your race.
Virginia had passed the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" which required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth, and made marriage between white persons and non-white persons a felony.
A lot of states then made similar bans. Anti-interracial marriage laws were not challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court until 1967 with "Loving v. Virginia". Mildred Loving was an african-american, also part Native American, woman who married Richard Perry Loving in the District of Columbia - they left Virginia to evade the "Racial Integrity Act". When they returned home to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. They were caught sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime). In their defense, Ms. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom. That, instead of defending them, became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge since it showed they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia.
At any rate, the ACLU became involved. And "Loving v. Virginia" finally overturned all those antiquated laws in 1967. But it was a long, long road.
I'm not sure what some of these posters want Obama to do. He doesn't have a magic wand to change state laws or people's minds. Presidents have nothing to do with gay marriage - unless he wants to propose a federal constitutional amendment.
Bush tried a constitutional amendment against gay marriage --- both houses of Congress need to muster up a two-thirds majority (and that's the easy part; after that, 75% of the states have to ratify the bill). Bush could not even do the easy part of getting a bill passed in Congess even when he had republican majorities.
(We got great speeches on the Senate floor, though, debating the issue. I remember former senator Rick Santorum compared gay sex to "man-on-dog" sex... then arguing that, what's next? A man marrying his goat?)
"Don't ask, don't tell" is a federal issue. Obama could insert himself into that topic.
The U.S. Supreme Court could insert itself into the gay marriage debate. But I'm not sure I'd want a case taken up just yet. I have a feeling all the conservatives - Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts - would vote against it. And we'd then have to pick up all of the remaining votes.
With reference to black and white marriage, there was a whole series of precedents. As far back as 1883, in "Pace v. Alabama", the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that convicting an Alabama couple for having interraical sex did not violate the 14th Amendment. -- So, interracial sex was a felony. Though adultery was only a misdemeanor as long as it was done within your race.
Virginia had passed the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" which required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth, and made marriage between white persons and non-white persons a felony.
A lot of states then made similar bans. Anti-interracial marriage laws were not challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court until 1967 with "Loving v. Virginia". Mildred Loving was an african-american, also part Native American, woman who married Richard Perry Loving in the District of Columbia - they left Virginia to evade the "Racial Integrity Act". When they returned home to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. They were caught sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime). In their defense, Ms. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom. That, instead of defending them, became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge since it showed they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia.
At any rate, the ACLU became involved. And "Loving v. Virginia" finally overturned all those antiquated laws in 1967. But it was a long, long road.
I am beginning to wonder if you're asking too much from him, consider that when you, presumably, gave him your vote, you knew he was not supporting gay marriage
Whatever his political motives were
Nick, I never cared much about the word marriage as long as we have all the legal benefits similar to marriage, call it tralalalala for all I care
THAT is pressing
Last edited:
D_Rod Staffinbone
Account Disabled
with all due respect, there are many examples of individuals, with NO legal authority, who have raised human consciousness in a very real way throughout history. obama easily could use the power of his "pulpit" to do this, to explain to americans why equality makes us all stronger. i am not counting on obama, at this point, to be in the same league martin luther king or ghandi, but would be pleased to be proven wrong.
Last edited:
I took that position for a long time, too, Sexxxx. I considered "marriage" a religious word and didn't particularly care what a partnership between two people was called. The problem is, it doesn't work. The way laws are written, "Civil Unions", or " Domestic Partnerships" or any other wording other than that of "Marriage" will not equate to or bestow over 1,700 legal rights and privileges that "marriage" will for same sex couples. Therefor only the word "marriage" is acceptable.
I personally am not against the ALL or NOTHING mentality, but it has its drawbacks which prevailed in the past two terms
Well, it started with DOMA, did it not?
It is too late to backtrack now and we have to no other option but to wait and see
Perhaps we all have learned the hard way that extremism would get us so far before the other side built a higher wall
To repeal it is way harder and longer than to prevent it be signed in the first place
Similar threads
