Although not included in the video clip above, the MTV page goes on to quote Obama as also saying
Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them…
In addition to expressing his opposition to Proposition 8, Obama said he believes and supports “strong civil unions … that provide legal rights to same-sex couples [so] that they can visit each other in the hospital if they get sick, [so] they can transfer property to each other. If they’ve got benefits, they can make sure those benefits apply to their partners. I think that’s the direction we need to go in. I think young people are ahead of the curve on this for the most part. Their attitude, generally, is that we should be respectful of all people, and that’s the kind of politics I want to practice.”
Of course, California already has marriage equality, so his support of civil unions is retrograde and so very Jim Crow. And since CA also still has Domestic Partnerships, I wonder if his strong civil unions stance actually supports someone who wants to vote for Prop 8 to feel quite alright about doing that. After all, those gays will still have our DP largesse.
So, after watching this, is the glass half full or half empty for you? Unless the full video reveals something further, for me the glass is half empty. I am disappointed that he couldn’t talk about constitutions and what they’re for without stating boldly and for the umpteenth time that marriage is between a man and a woman. In January, he will be taking an oath to uphold the Constitution of the USA. Yet his emphasis remains on religion and personal bigotry, not equal protection of the laws. And he made sure we all know that. When will he let us see the constitutional scholar he keeps claiming to be?
All I can hope is that enough of his supporters in CA, AZ and FL, who will be voting on anti-equality amendments next week, will somehow hear “vote no on that trash!” in his weak “no marriage for gays! oh, but don’t mess with constitutions” response.
Definitely half-empty.
<
p>Unnecessary was the best word he could think of to describe this hateful proposition? And that’s simply lovely that he has to preface any and all answers on this question by stating two times over that he truly does believe that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. Perhaps he wouldn’t have to explain himself so much if his stances weren’t at odds with one another.
<
p>It sounds like he’s saying….So go ahead, discriminate against gays in marriage rights as long as it isn’t done constitutionally! Statutorily is a-okay by Obama.
<
p>Pathetic.
like prohibitions against marrying a brother or sister or mother, etc. Those are all statutes, they aren’t in any constitutions.
It sounds to me like he’s for everything except the actual name of “marriage”. As to the specifics of Prop. 8, he has clearly stated his opposition, so the effect of his wishes would be to keep marriage legal in CA in both fact and name. I’d prefer to just call it marriage and be done with it, but reject your constant harping that civil unions are just disguised bigotry.
And if they’re all that, when are Barack and Michelle going to replace their marriage with one? Any time the government creates hundreds of pages of new legal code just to prevent a minority from using a word, it’s fair to say bigotry is at play. If you’re ok with that level of bigotry, then say so. But you can;t deny it exists. There is NO other reason for the ghetto institution to have been created.
I just wish you would chill just a bit. I want to use the word marriage too, but I’m a very practical person. Civil union definitions may vary by state, but the kind I tolerate is that which includes every single right of marriage. Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good, especially when the candidate closer to our preferences belonging to the party more open to this change is about to be elected. It shouldn’t take 100s of pages of legal code, just one sentence that says, “A civil union is a contract entered into between two consenting adults entailing all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of a marriage between a man and a woman in the state of…” I am NOT OK with bigotry and of course it exists, but you are looking for it in all the wrong places.
I would have had nothing but praise for Obama if he has said what he said about Prop 8 without taking the opportunity to remind everyone again that Jim Crow is the way to go. This man is a constitutional scholar and professor. He is a civil rights attorney. He is about to be the defender of the US Constitution. It is NOT ok with me that he feels that some of us are more fully deserving of the protections of state constitutions than others. And he should NOT be allowed to think otherwise by our silence.
There are thousands of couples that have no protections and no federal recognition, and that has real effects, sometimes devastating effects. Pushing for equal rights holds up progress in getting equal protections. You may not need your life-long partners social security survivors benefits, but there are people out there that desperately do.
this is not a zero sum game. pushing for full equality under the law does not preclude being “given” partial equality in the form of civil unions etc. a quick look at what came down in NH, VT, CT, NJ, WA and CA proves that.
<
p>as for social security, getting those survivor benefits is completely reliant on being married to the deceased. you really need to do some basic research. i don’t think you understand how important marriage is, and how totally worthless civil unions are at the federal level.
There would need to be a federal law to recognize civil unions as if they were marriages, true. But that’s not going to happen unless there is a permanent principled distinction that protects marriage, and it’s not going to happen unless there is a uniform definition of state civil unions to ensure they are not taken lightly and open to fraud (they have to be as hard to get out of as marriages to stop people from CU’ing temporarily, and give all the obligations as well as benefits). Too many states, and too many people, won’t accept same-sex marriage, and won’t accept CU’s that are marriage in all but name, whereas most states and most people are ready and willing to give same-sex couples CU’s as long as marriage is protected. They don’t want to equate marriage rights with the rights of a same-sex couple. Doing that gravely harms marriage rights.
MLK said:
<
p>
<
p>And I don’t think you’re being fair to Laurel and others, myself included, who have similar views as her. Have you read the Connecticut marriage case that dealt with this specific issue of whether civil unions are an acceptable substitute? Or how about California and their Domestic Partnerships? Or New Jersey and their study done showing the very real tangible differences of civil unions vs. marriage?(and that’s not even touching upon the intangible parts of which the court cases delve into very well)
<
p>Obama’s view is wrong. Supporting civil unions, but not civil marriage for a minority is marriage segregation. It’s even more hurtful since he’s suppose to represent change and a new kind of politics. It’s even more hurtful since he’s bi-racial and there was a time when his parents weren’t afforded the right to marry. It’s even more hurtful that he’s a constitutional lawyer who went to Harvard Law and he still spouts that unconstitutional and bigoted stance.
<
p>Until equality is afforded, no minority should ever be told to pipe down.
<
p>
…is that I too have similar views. Actually, not similar views – the SAME views. Where we differ is our strategy for getting to the ultimate goal. Let me be clear – I want civil MARRIAGE and do believe that we can and should use that word. I cannot accept anything less in practice than absolute equality of rights; I just think we get distracted if the ONLY difference is what we call it. I too disagree with Obama and others, but refuse to call the “everything but” crowd “bigots”, – a word that Laurel uses much too generously thus diluting the impact that word should have when used properly.
I’m a pragmatist too and that’s why I’ll be voting for Obama. However, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be criticized harshly for taking the wrong stance on civil rights.
<
p>And as to the choice of words to call those politicians that don’t support equal rights bigoted, I personally think it’s called for, but can see how it may be viewed as extreme. It’s a loaded word and usually used for those who hate a particular group. I do think it’s also acceptable to describe those actions of individuals that are obviously prejudiced and yes, bigoted, towards a minority as such.
<
p>You look at Obama’s motivation and see someone who is doing as much as he believes is possible on gay rights. And he may very well be doing that and have good intentions. I don’t know. I don’t think anyone here knows for sure unless you know him personally and he it doesn’t help that he keeps stating over and over again that he really does believe marriage is between a man and a woman. However, whatever his motivation may be, the end matter is that Obama is using his religious beliefs to affect his public policy stances which would deny a minority basic civil rights. That is bigotry however you slice it.
There are entirely supportable basis to believe that people should have certain rights only with someone of the other sex, just as there are supportable basis to believe that siblings should not have the right to get married.
your comparison of homosexuality to incest doesn’t help your case.
Looks like my answer to huh was deleted. How am I supposed to answer if the answer is censored here?
<
p>At any rate, the point was that there are supportable rights to prohibit certain relationships from marrying each other. Siblings, parent-child, aunts, etc. People will have to do the work of asking why those relationships are prohibited from marrying, and then applying it to same-sex couples themselves.
<
p>
There’s no way around it. Who is the “everything but” crowd, anyhow? Just Obama and Biden, as far as I can tell. The anti-SSM people are not for “everything but” the name marriage, though most of them are for legal protections via Civil Unions. Only a few are for no legal protections whatsoever.
All of the Democratic candidates in recent memory except Sharpton and Kucinich have been “everything but” folks. And every anti-SSM group I know of has opposed civil unions. Mass. Family Insitute opposes any form of gay rights, for example.
<
p>Per Wikipedia, twenty-six states have passed constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, eighteen of which prohibit the legal recognition of any same-sex union..
<
p>Get the picture?
only prohibit civil unions that are substantially identical to marriage. Hillary never said “all of the rights of marriage”, she was much more nuanced. Now, it is true that quite a few legislatures passed “everything but name” civil unions, but I think those were cynical temporary compromises that were never intended to stand, and no one was really happy with them.
<
p>And even MFI supports giving legal protections:
<
p>Yes, they’re opposed to homosexuality, but I’m not talking about homosexuality anyhow, I’m just talking about marriage and giving protections for committed couples who aren’t eligible for marriage.
and you know damn well they’re not talking about committed relationships.
<
p>But then, I’d forgotten about your relationship with MassResistance:
<
p>John Howard, a Massachusetts activist pushing for legislation banning this frightening research, has reminded us of his blog on this subject. We encourage you to contact him if you’re interested in promoting legislation to block this looming nightmare.
<
p>Pretty unsavory company for someone “not talking about homosexuality.”
I respect them, I won’t distance myself from them in the slightest. I do wish they would have embraced and promoted the Compromise, but I’m thankful they at least agreed about that.
you choose interesting friends, john.
Brian Camenker’s attempted refutation is as good a summary as any:
<
p>