Jimmy Carter disappoints on the issue of Texas and gay marriage

[theHandpuppet]

This really hurts, coming from one my heroes.

The Daily Signal
Jimmy Carter: ‘If Texas Doesn’t Want to Have Gay Marriage, Then That’s a Right for Texas People to Have’
Video Team / October 27, 2014

Video at link: http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/27/jimmy-carter-texas-doesnt-want-gay-marriage-thats-right-texas-people/

[shenmue]

1. I know

I'm sorry, I love President Carter on so many things, but he's wrong about this.

[MADem]

5. He is not wrong about anything--he supports gay marriage and belongs to a church that

does not discriminate against LGBT people.

The linked source is spinning his words, it's a right wing rag run by the Heritage Foundation.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. He is wrong about it.

Our right to marry should not be reserved to the whim of voters of any state!

[MADem]

7. The right of EVERYONE--gay or straight--to marry is reserved to the whim of voters of any state.

If you get married in the USA, that is.

It has ALWAYS been thus.


See post four.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. No, it is not!

There are specific restrictions based on certain things, but sexual orientation as a qualifier is nothing but bigoted. It was wrong when different races couldn't marry and it is wrong now. PERIOD!

Now, you tell me with a straight face, pun intended!, you would say the same thing of ANY person saying the same about blacks being allowed to marry whites.

[MADem]

10. Yes, it is. You need a marriage license to get married, and states--not the federal government--

issue them.

The federal government can "influence" the behavior of states in this regard (as they've done with other issues--for example, withholding highway funds when they wanted states to change the drinking age to eighteen and lower the speed limits to 55) but the states issue the licenses. It's their role to so do.

No license, no wedding.

Absent a Constitutional amendment of course--and we couldn't manage to pass the ERA, so I wouldn't hold out much hope on a Constitutional amendment dealing with marriage rights.

Stop getting angry with me--you're doing the same thing that the right wing link in the OP did--take someone's words and TWIST them.

If you want a marriage without a license issued by a state, you have to get married in another country. States DO decide--like it or not--who will get one of their licenses. That's all Carter is saying.

That said, I actually agree with Ted Olson--we're at a tipping point on this issue, we've reached the downhill slide and it'll be smooth sailing and a non-issue sooner rather than later.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. You seem to be missing the point.

First, don't presume to tell me what I can and can't be angry about in regards to my own civil rights and then falsely claim I am like a right-winger because I want to be treated with EQUALITY. If a state decided it would not issue a license to an interracial couple, it would be ILLEGAL! A question YOU didn't answer!

Second, if a person is married WITHOUT a license in another country, guess what? It is considered a LEGAL marriage in this country and every state, UNLESS it is a homosexual couple! THAT IS BIGOTRY!

His comment was that Texas should have the right to determine if GL people should be allowed to be wed based on sexual orientation...that is BIGOTED!

This is the LGBT group!

[MADem]

12. No, I am not missing the point.

Unless you can find a way to get married in a state without a state-issued marriage license, I am not missing the point. And that's the point Carter was making.

I did not claim you were a right winger--please READ before you make such spurious accusations in the future. I was talking about the source--the very right wing source from the HERITAGE FOUNDATION--of this story. Start with post 4. Shame on you--what a nasty accusation, you owe me an apology.

It does seem you are unclear on the legalities of marriage as it relates to the US and foreign countries. This link will help you. With the exception of social security benefits, which is an issue that needs resolution and likely will resolve soon, married is married.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/issues-affecting-same-sex-couples-faq-32292-2.html

Does the federal government recognize same-sex marriage?
Yes. The federal government must now recognize valid same-sex marriages.
The U.S. Supreme Court's June 26, 2013 decision in U.S. v. Windsor cleared the way for same-sex married couples to receive federal benefits. In Windsor, the Supreme Court struck down the section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that limited marriage to a union between a man and a woman. You can read more about that decision here.
As a result, legally married same-sex couples will qualify (for the most part) for federal benefits - regardless of where they live. However, the rules for eligibility do vary among federal agencies.
Married is Married - Even in Non-recognition States
Many federal agencies, such as the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the U.S. Office of Personnel & Management, look to the place of celebration (where the marriage was performed) to determine whether same-sex married couples are eligible for benefits. If you're in a valid marriage, you will qualify for immigration status and federal employee benefits (if either of you works for the federal government), even if you live in a non-recognition state.
It wasn't clear how the IRS would approach this issue until August 2013, when the U.S. Department of Treasury ruled that all same-sex couples that are legally married in any U.S. state, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory or a foreign country will be recognized as married under all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor.
The Treasury Department further clarified that federal recognition for tax purposes applies whether a same-sex married couple lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage (such as California) or a non-recognition jurisdiction (such as Texas). But the decision does not apply to same-sex couples in domestic partnerships or civil unions....

You can be angry about whatever you'd like--I really don't have any desire to restrict your ability to find pique in anything, so why accuse me of not "allowing" that, either? Just don't focus your ire AT me for pointing out facts.

Argue with facts, not emotions--and don't misstate my views or what I say. I will point it out if you do.


I did address the aspect of the federal government "leaning" on states to influence their laws (if you bothered to read what I wrote and I am more and more convinced that you did not do that) and that would cover the "interracial" aspect you are using as an example. That said, a state that just didn't give a shit could continue to refuse to accommodate "Loving v. VA" couples and face consequences, if they so desired. Many states held out for a while against "DRIVE 55" and the federal 18 year old drinking age, too-but eventually they saw the benefits of compliance and came to their OWN decision to get in line.

Bottom line is this--marriage licenses ARE (even if you do not like it) issued by STATES. States make the decision as to who might get married within their borders. That is all Carter was saying. He wasn't saying that TX had the "right" to "discriminate." He said the decision is in their hands. That's a distinction and a difference, and -- as we've seen with other states -- one that might well be accomplished on a continuum.

I also understand that this is the LGBT group and I am not saying anything that is 'anti' LGBT. The fact that you are trying to silence my comments with that "warning" is disturbing in the extreme. I'm speaking factually, here, not 'advocating.'

FWIW, I am very much pro-equality and believe that anyone of legal age who wants to marry should be free to do so. That said, the intereraction between state and federal government is complex. One is not "the boss" of the other and that is where people tend to get confused.

And using a HERITAGE FOUNDATION source to trash one of our more liberal presidents, one who had to really dig deep to get past his ingrained religious biases, is what is troublesome, here--Carter is being misrepresented, and I find that unfair.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. I don't owe you an apology, you owe me one.

I read what you wrote, and what Carter said. This is the LGBT group and defending bigotry against GLBT is NOT welcomed. Do not assume we, GLBT people, are "confused, we are not. Stating that states should be allowed to maintain their bigotry is BIGOTED... PERIOD! Comparing our EQUALITY to driving speeds and drinking "rights" is just insulting. I suggest you take your own advice and read what I ACTUALLY said and not what you imagined I said. Defending "state's rights" on marriage equality is BIGOTED!

[MADem]

14. I'm outta here. You're misrepresenting what I said and you want to fight with me.

No one--not me, not Carter--is "defending bigotry." No one is saying that "states should be allowed to maintain their bigotry." You are coming to that conclusion all on your own, without any help from me or Jimmy Carter.

You refuse to acknowledge that the source of the article is a right wing site that has no love for equality, yet you're taking their word for the context of Carter's remarks, despite the fact that I have provided a link and quotes that reflect his actual pro-LGBT position on the issue of equality.

And you persist in ignoring my point that the day you can get married in a state without a license issued by that state will be a day that never comes. States -- not the federal government -- issue marriage licenses.

Using an analogy to explain the relationship between the federal government and state governments is not comparing marriage to driving speeds or drinking rights--it's using an example to explain the RELATIONSHIP of the two governments.

Have the last word because I've had more than enough abuse. I am disappointed in the way that you "argue" a point and I am especially disappointed in your false characterizations of me.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. Carter said:

“I’m kind of inclined to let the states decide individually. As you see, more and more states are deciding on gay marriage every year. If Texas doesn’t want to have gay marriage, then I think that’s a right for Texas people to decide,” Carter said.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/27/jimmy_carter_flip_flops_on_nationwide_marriage_equality/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

Slate also a rightwing source?

[dbackjon]

25. Good - you don't belong here

State's rights is always an excuse for discrimination.

You are either ignorant, or obtuse. Or really believe in the state's right to discriminate

[MADem]

27. That wasn't the argument that I--or Carter--was making.

I'm not interested in a back and forth that goes nowhere. Jimmy Carter's views on equality are a matter of public record, and they're articulated in post 4. This article and slant are from the right wing Heritage Foundation.

Jimmy Carter is being shoved under the bus here for telling the truth about how the system works. Equality will be the law of the land across the board and if TX doesn't want to participate they'll reap the economic and social consequences of their non-participation.

[dbackjon]

30. What CARTER SAID

“I’m kind of inclined to let the states decide individually,” the former president told WFAA, an ABC affiliate, in an interview that aired Sunday.

“As you see, more and more states are deciding on gay marriage every year,” Carter said. “If Texas doesn’t want to have gay marriage, then I think that’s a right for Texas people to decide.”




He believes in state's rights. He believes in discrimination.


How much more fucking plain do we need to be.

If you do not support the right of gays to marry anywhere, regardless of what the state wants, then you are A FUCKING BIGOT.


FUCK CARTER. And fuck anyone that does not believe that marriage should be legal in ALL STATES.

[MADem]

36. OK -- then "f-ck state's rights." That's your argument.

Massachusetts had no "right" to go against federal admonitions via DOMA, then. Nor did any of the other states who exercised THEIR states' rights and followed suit...?

Equality would not be at the tipping point of "law of the land" were it not for "states' rights." That's the bit you seem to be missing.

[dbackjon]

38. Civil Rights should NEVER be restricted by common vote

Or by the guise of state's rights. It's a one-way street towards equality.

[MADem]

40. States' rights is a two-edged sword, that is mitigated and sometimes guided by federal intervention.

The bottom line, though, is that states' rights ADVANCED equality in America. The result of states' rights actions by states like the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Vermont and Maine and others was a net gain for marriage rights for all as a consequence of them, and without states' rights, there would be no equality of marriage in the USA. The federal government had neither the desire nor the will to make equality the law of the land. This is an uncomfortable truth--but it is the truth. No 'guise' about it.

States that don't have marriage equality are in the minority today, but the ones that do have it because either the voters of individual states voted for it, or the judges, elected by the voters or appointed by politicians placed into office by the voters, ruled that discrimination in marriage violated those STATES' constitutions.

[Zenlitened]

42. You are really twisting the notion of "states rights" here.

States reserve the right to be sued all the way into the federal courts, by residents being harmed by state policy? Huh?

I understand your wish to defend Pres. Carter, I admire him as well. But those words he spoke were NOT a simple lesson about how government works. They just weren't, and it's frankly insulting for you to insist otherwise.

Yes, he supports LGBT rights, but he undercuts that support when he says let states decide. It is the states that are discriminating -- actively harming millions of people -- and his words lend moral authority to continuing that harm.

Honestly, I think you're way out of bounds lecturing LGBT people about marriage equality -- in the LGBT forum, no less -- and shouting down their experience-informed view of what the discussion is all about.

This might be an opportunity for allies to practice more listening, less lecturing.

[MADem]

45. No, I am not--I am right in line with FREEDOM TO MARRY.

We get there by WINNING states. http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/roadmap-to-victory

Carter feels the same way.

I'm not lecturing anyone. I am simply stating my view of the issue, and because it is nuanced (despite being in line with FTM--are they unwelcome here, too? ) I am getting pushback, being told I 'don't belong' and getting treated dismissively. I don't like the accusations that I don't support the goal because I think the way they're going about it (states' rights) is working. That's "lecturing" if you ask me.

I am a realist--and the FTM approach is realistic and it will prove successful. Stomping on Carter because people are perceiving his words incorrectly isn't "on" with me. And that is what seems to be happening here.

When states are "sued into federal courts" it's because their state collars and their state cuffs don't match. Those state constitutions, that were prepared by and for "They the people" of those states, are what is being challenged. It's still down to what the people of the state have said, via their Constitutions, is the law of their land. If their Constitutions outlaw discrimination, that's a decision that was made by the people of the state, and it is one that they need to live by. They've already approved equality--they just need to have it pointed out because apparently they need a fresh look at their own Constitutions. That's what the lawsuits are about.

Of course, the real question at the end of the day is "Cui bono?" Answer--the guy running against Carter's grandson for GA governor. Painting Carter, and by extension his grandson, as 'cool' on the equality issue serves to depress the liberal/progressive vote in a race where Jason needs every single vote he can get.

[theHandpuppet]

48. Right. Everyone is "perceiving his words incorrectly" but you.

Yet you remind us you're not lecturing us here on the LGBT forum, as if the people here -- who are LGBT and have to live with discrimination and hate every damn day -- are either too naïve or too stupid to even ken their legal rights or the strategies that might (or might not) result in all LGBT getting their rights... some day... maybe. Well thank you very much.

YOU escalated this thread into the heated and contentious exchange it has become. The only remark I even made in the OP was that Carter's words hurt me, as he is one of my heroes. There are others here who feel the same. Please don't lecture us on how we should feel.

Stop. For God's sake just stop it.

[MADem]

49. Look, I support equality for all and I think Carter does too.

I am not getting 'heated and contentious'--I was trying to have a conversation.

That is apparently impossible. I won't and am not lecturing you on how you should feel. I am sharing MY perceptions and getting shit on for it.

I'm out.

[Zenlitened]

53. Hiding behind (and, frankly, distorting) Freedom To Marry's strategy...

... doesn't make you any less wrong. And using them to make smarmy implications about the LGBT group, that's just lower than low.

You can shout "nuh uh! nuh uh! nuh uh!" as much as you want (or as much as the group hosts will permit) but the plain fact is you're out of your depth on this subject. As is shown by, among other examples, your repeated efforts to redefine the notion of "states' rights."

When I'm out of my depth on a topic, and people are kind enough to point this out to me, I try to hear what they're saying. I find that hectoring and haranguing marginalized people who have good reason to know better than I do... well, it doesn't really accomplish anything, except to add to their burden.

Let me say this plainly: You're not acting like much of an ally here. You seem to be putting your loyalty to Pres. Carter ahead of -- way ahead of -- the concerns, experiences and hard-earned insights of people who live with the reality of discrimination every day. Whose entire life trajectories have been affected by the bias against them. And who, as an inevitable consequence of living one more minute, one more hour, have been fighting this fight in ways large and small literally for decades.

So, no, your link to Freedom To Marry doesn't impress me. It merely suggests that you're willing to use any- and everyone in service of... what, exactly? The gubernatorial aspirations of the grandson of someone you happen to like? The electoral odds-making around the Georgia statehouse? The care and feeding of your own ego?

How ridiculous, how wrong. No one's "stomping on Carter" here. People are pointing out shortcomings in the words he spoke, the idea he expressed. The idea that voters in Texas should be free to -- have the right to -- exclude lesbian and gay couples from marriage. An idea that has caused very real harm to generations of people in every state of the nation.

I'm sorry if their objections don't suit your political calculus at the moment, but... well, no, I'm really not very sorry at all. This is about so much more than election-year intrigue, or some drawing-room debate on the mechanisms of government. This is about real people living real lives, and I think you've done them a terrible disservice with your antics here today.

[MADem]

54. All I can say is wow. "Antics?" Hectoring and haranguing?

It is plain that no difference of opinion will be brooked here, because an attack on character and motive will follow.

It does not matter if the goal is shared, the path must be as well.

[Behind the Aegis]

55. ENOUGH!

I am now speaking as a host. Stop! If you want to be blocked from this group, then let me know and I will oblige.

[Zenlitened]

59. Self-proclaimed ally insists he knows better...

...refuses to concede value in POVs based on lived experience...

...derails discussion with procedural minutia about "how the world really works"...

...projects his faults onto others in the discussion...

...and eventually declares himself the tragically put-upon victim of the very group of people with whom he claims to ally.

Yep, I think we've about covered it all here.

Bye now, I'm through.

[Aerows]

56. "This might be an opportunity for allies to practice more listening, less lecturing"

Couldn't have said it better. You are absolutely right, Zen.

[Zenlitened]

61. Thanks. Seemed worth a try. -n/t

[Aerows]

63. I'm impressed at how well you held your temper

Mine isn't that good!

[Jamastiene]

39. No one is denying that is how things are.

We are arguing that is not how it SHOULD be.

The higher courts are overturning state law after state law against gay marriage and essentially legalizing it in states that had voted against it. That means that old rule can be overridden once it has been declared unconstitutional by a higher court. Even my pitiful tiny rural NC county has issued its first gay marriage license to two women. They were first to go for it. They are legally married now. They got married not long after they got their license. There was even an article in the paper about them.

The fact still remains that Jimmy Carter said he believed some people in the states should have the right to vote someone else's rights away. That is essentially saying he thinks it is ok for the majority in any state to discriminate against gay people. Nothing changes the fact that he said that, no matter what source. The quote is what it is.

[MADem]

43. That is not what Carter said.

How can people not granted a right by a state in the first place have that state "vote it away?"

Carter said TX voters should make the decision--not that they should vote AGAINST it.

Were it not for "states' rights" there would be no marriage equality in USA. DOMA wouldn't be a weak idea, it would be enforceable law. There was never any impetus at the federal legislative level to advance marriage equality--that push came from the states. In some cases, states that weren't too thrilled initially were hoisted on their own constitutional non-discrimination petards, and good enough for them, but the bottom line is, equality would be nowhere without the states.

Without the majority of states making the decision-- by voters, by judicial decisions of judges elected by voters or appointed by politicians elected by voters-- supporting equality, there was no compelling reason for the federal government to act.

I support the Freedom to Marry roadmap--it is working where other tactics failed. It is a multi-pronged approach, but the centerpiece is "Win More States."

I never thought a day would come when I agreed with Ted Olson on anything, but that day did come, much to my surprise.

[theHandpuppet]

44. You mean you agree with Olson when he said this?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/27/capital-download-theodore-olson-supreme-court-gay-marriage/17952923/
Ted Olson: 'Point of no return' on gay marriage passed
Susan Page, USA TODAY
October 27, 2014

WASHINGTON -- Former solicitor general Theodore Olson, the Republican lawyer who argued Bush v. Gore and the challenge to California's Proposition 8, says the Supreme Court through action and inaction this month passed "the point of no return" on same-sex marriage.

"I do not believe that the United States Supreme Court could rule that all of those laws prohibiting marriage are suddenly constitutional after all these individuals have gotten married and their rights have changed," he said in an interview on Capital Download. "To have that snatched away, it seems to me, would be inhuman; it would be cruel; and it would be inconsistent with what the Supreme Court has said about these issues in the cases that it has rendered."

This month, the high court let stand without explanation appeals court rulings permitting gay marriage in five states. In an interview with The New Yorker published last week, President Obama said he believes it is a constitutional right but endorsed the court's incremental approach.

Olson disagrees with that, saying the Supreme Court should take a case and affirmatively endorse marriage as a constitutional right. "I think the thing he overlooks...(is) that there are people in 18 states of the United States that don't have this fundamental right that he has just announced that he believes in."...

[MADem]

46. Yes--but the way we got there is through the STATES' RIGHTS approach.

Look, we couldn't get the ERA passed because we DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH STATES. When you have enough states--and we are approaching the tipping point--then and only then can and will the federal government jump in. We are approaching critical mass, but we got there because of the actions of INDIVIDUAL STATES--that "states' rights" that everyone seems to hate.

We are down to EIGHTEEN states now. Olson would not have made that comment if the states outlawing equality in marriage were twenty eight, or thirty eight. The only reason he can make that argument now is BECAUSE a preponderance of states, and a preponderance of citizens of this country, are in favor of equality for all.

[theHandpuppet]

50. I'm done here.

And unlike you, when I say I'm done I'm REALLY done.

You're right and the rest of us are wrong. I get it, we're just too stupid to understand. We're not even allowed to be hurt.

This is probably the sorriest thread in which I've participated at LGBT group. I'd let you know what I'm really feeling right now if I felt I wouldn't get banned.

[Aerows]

72. None of us are too stupid to understand

It's that guilt trip that if we criticize - rightfully - a bigoted statement by a Democrat, we want Republicans to win the election.

It's ridiculous.

I'd call out Jesus Christ if he makes a bigoted statement, and I wouldn't even be concerned with the walking on water.

[shenmue]

16. ?

Thanks.

[MADem]

17. See post 4. It explains a lot.

The source of this article takes Carter's words out of context. He is speaking to the relationship between the federal and state governments, which is, like it or not, fact--states will decide what they want, and the federal government will lean on them, and there will be a push-pull until equilibrium is achieved.

This does not mean he "approves" of discrimination, in fact, he favors equality in marriage and left his church over their bigotry and now belongs to one that supports equality. His interpretation of the Bible (see the link I provided in post 4) specifically refutes "religious" arguments against gays.

He is a full supporter of LGBT rights, but the right wing HERITAGE FOUNDATION has found a way to twist his words and make it seem otherwise.

Here's Jimmy talking two years ago--this is not a man who supports discrimination in any form: http://www.queerty.com/jimmy-carter-supports-gay-marriage-jesus-never-said-gay-people-should-be-condemned-20120320

Carter has also signed on to the inclusion of marriage-equality language in the 2012 Democratic National Platform, alongside fellow ex-prez Bill Clinto, almost-prez Al Gore, 22 Democratic Senators, and other leaders across the nation.

[shenmue]

22. Okay

I stand corrected. Thanks.

[dbackjon]

31. He is in favor of discrimination.

Since he believes a state should be able to deny same-sex marriage.

[MADem]

34. He doesn't "believe" anything of the sort. He simply stated a fact.

He favors full equality for all. http://www.glaad.org/blog/former-president-jimmy-carter-supports-marriage-equality

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/former-president-jimmy-carter-supports-marriage-equality

However, you can't MAKE voters vote the way you want them to--unless you're Saddam 99% Hussein, or Kim Jong 100% Un. Why his remarks are being spun to suggest that he'd be "happy" if TX voters made a dumbass decision is beyond me--unless you look to those who are gleefully flogging this story, with purpose.

Again, I invite your attention to his POV re: the 1012 Democratic Party platform position on this topic posted elsewhere in this thread.

He made his views clear then--funny how people are willing to believe the spin of the Heritage Foundation over Carter's own stated views.

The sky might be gray and full of clouds. To say "The sky is gray and full of clouds" is not necessarily an endorsement of gray, cloudy skies, but simply a statement of fact. Should we shoot the weatherman if he states facts, too?

The Heritage Foundation's goal here is to depress support for Jimmy's grandson Jason, who is running for GA governor, is trailing, and needs every single D vote he can get, by dragging his gramps under the bus right before election day. I am amazed at how easily they were able to stick it to Carter with skillful editing and no follow-up. I'm also amazed at how readily so many people are to kick him under the bus, even after they have seen his views evolve, saw what he had to say in the interviews about his Bible book, and who saw his endorsement of the 2012 party platform plank

Mission accomplished...?

[theHandpuppet]

37. Enough is ENOUGH!

Last edited Tue Oct 28, 2014, 06:29 PM - Edit history (1)

I have apologized for carelessly citing what is a right wing web piece in my OP but that's as far as I'm going. The interview itself was conducted by WFAA 8's (abc news, Dallas) "Inside Politics" news segment, which I viewed here: http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/26/inside-texas-politics-92614/17957615/

In that interview he makes it quite clear that although he personally supports gay marriage, he also believes the issue should be left up to the states and it would seem there are dozens of other sites, only some of which I will list here, who have come away with the very same interpretation that I and others here did:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/27/jimmy-carter-gay-marriage_n_6055322.html?ir=Politics
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/26/jimmy-carter-same-sex-marriage/17963533/
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/27/jimmy_carter_flip_flops_on_nationwide_marriage_equality/
http://thegavoice.com/watch-jimmy-carter-says-gay-marriage-left-states/
http://www.projectq.us/atlanta/jimmy_carter_backtracks_on_gay_marriage?gid=16226
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/10/26/jimmy-carter-states-should-be-allowed-to-not-marry-gay-couples/
http://www.examiner.com/article/jimmy-carter-says-states-not-feds-should-decide-fate-of-gay-marriage

In your rebuttal you cited lifesite news for an excerpt from The Huffington Post. I'm sorry, but you trashed my OP for citing The Daily Signal yet you source lifesite news, a rabidly anti-abortion, anti-gay site that also just published - surprise! - "Jimmy Carter: States should be able to say no to redefining marriage ". Additionally, guess who just published this piece: "Jimmy Carter Flip-Flops On Nationwide Same-Sex Marriage"? Why, it's the Huffington Post!

I feel I have been, up to now, civil in my response and restraint to your posts in this thread but I have reached my limit. I'm really getting pissed off. Cut it out.

[MADem]

47. The Heritage Foundation did a great job of spreading that story around.

I deliberately used a rightwing site in response to show that even the wingnuts are saying that Carter is pro-equality. It was a quid pro quo way of showing that even they acknowledged his words. As for the headline you cite, Jimmy Carter said no such thing--they were "interpreting" for him. I also used some GLBT friendly sites in my discussions, but you didn't take note of those, I guess.

It is obvious to me that, despite being rabidly pro-equality, I am not going to get any discussion here. I am being told to conform, to not tout the strategy that FTM and others endorse, and to just get mad at a guy who has been on the pro-equality bandwagon for several years now.

OK, whatever.

[dbackjon]

24. WRONG

He supports Discrimination.

[MADem]

28. No he does not.

See posts four and seventeen. Read the links at them. He was and is a public and vocal supporter of full equality.

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. Jimmy is still an Evangelical....and a very old man

[Thinkingabout]

3. I think this an issue which is being decided state by state. Currently

Recognition of common-law marriage is handled state by state. Divorce laws are also state by state, I wish Texas would get with the program but our state house has much too much red, we can hope in the next few years and especially before 2020 this will change in order to get the GOP gerrymandering out.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Doesn't change the bigoted nature of the remark.

Sexual orientation being used as a qualifier to decide if someone can marry or not is bigoted.

[Thinkingabout]

21. Did Jimmy Carter speak out against same sex marriage or did you hear him say

It should be accomplished in the state level? It will happen, just as divorce and common law marriages are determined state by state. He was speaking about where rather than not to have same sex marriages.

[theHandpuppet]

23. Yeah, look how well the states rights argument worked for civil rights and desegregation

Basic human rights should never be a states rights issue, subject to the whims or prejudices of the voters.

Further, the burdens placed upon gay couples due to the varying laws from state to state are beyond cruel. To have your marriage and legal rights recognized in one state and denied in others is a vicious game. My wife and I just had our marriage recognized in WV though we had to get married in Maryland; if we go home to visit family in Ohio our marriage and all the legal rights associated with that are not recognized at all. How would most of you like to live like that? Or your children?

[dbackjon]

26. Exactly

[dbackjon]

32. He said it was up to the states. Which means he supports discrimination

“I’m kind of inclined to let the states decide individually,” the former president told WFAA, an ABC affiliate, in an interview that aired Sunday.

“As you see, more and more states are deciding on gay marriage every year,” Carter said. “If Texas doesn’t want to have gay marriage, then I think that’s a right for Texas people to decide.”

[MNBrewer]

73. THat ALSO means that he doesn't believe that it is a Constitutional Right

I admire Mr. Carter immensely, but on this issue he is ill-informed and wrong.

[dbackjon]

74. Yup! He doesn't believe in the 14th Amendment

[dbackjon]

58. He said it was up to the states. Which means he supports discrimination

HE said if Texas wants to ban gay marriage, he is FINE WITH IT.


How more clear does that have to be.



I get it, Carter was a good President. The US would be in much, much better shape now if he had won re-election.


But he is 100% wrong on this.

[Thinkingabout]

60. I did not hear him say it was okay for Texas to ban gay marriage and he is fine with this.

I heard him say he thought it should be left to the states.

[dbackjon]

62. Direct Quote:

“I’m kind of inclined to let the states decide individually,” the former president told WFAA, an ABC affiliate, in an interview that aired Sunday.

“As you see, more and more states are deciding on gay marriage every year,” Carter said. “If Texas doesn’t want to have gay marriage, then I think that’s a right for Texas people to decide.”

So yes, that is what Carter said.

[Aerows]

64. That's what he said

I disagree with him, you disagree with him, and just about everyone except a couple of hard heads in this thread disagree with him. It's ironic that it is the LGBT members that are arguing with people that aren't - in the LGBT group.

[dbackjon]

66. I know

It's like it is a sin to criticize him for ANYTHING. Reminds me of what happened in the early years of the Obama Presidency.

[Aerows]

67. The early years?

Try the early and current years. It happens all the time. Say one cross word about a Dem, no matter what it is that Dem has done, and you are lambasted from all sides.

Say one cross word about something the federal government is doing, and you are accosting Obama and must be ripped to shreds. No slight, no simple holding people accountable is allowed. You MUST fall in line.

It irritates and frustrates me to no end.

[Zorra]

75. "If Texas doesn't want white people to marry black people, that's a right for

Texas people to have".

Do you get it now?

He's undeniably a bigot.

[MADem]

4. Your source is a right-wing, slanted piece of shit. Learn all about "The Daily Signal" in this

link:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/179745/heritage-foundation-launching-yet-another-right-wing-news-site

Heritage Foundation Launching (Yet Another) Right-Wing News Site

Just what the world needs, right, after The Daily Caller and The Blaze and the various Brietbart outlets, not to mention NRO (and I could go on)? But today comes the announcement: On June 3, the Heritage Foundation will launch another conservative website, The Daily Signal, that purportedly will balance or subvert the complete and noxious left-wing control of all reality-based news.

Don’t worry, there will also be an opinion section partly aimed at the kiddies who find Fox and The Wall Street Journal too fuddy-duddy....

Look--Jimmy Carter simply relayed a few FACTS--that marriage laws, like voting laws, are STATE issues, not federal ones (who here has a "federal" marriage license? Anyone? Bueller? And who has voted -- even in a FEDERAL election -- under anything but state or territorial voting laws?).

They took Jimmy Carter's simple statements of FACT, and presented them in such a way to suggest that he was endorsing a position.

It's how they do it.

Divide and conquer...oh so easy. We should be more attuned to this sort of attack, because it's their new strategy.

Carter is a 'religious' guy and he also does not believe that churches should be forced to officiate at marriages that go against their belief systems (who would want to patronize such bigoted faiths, anyway?) but he has said he favors equality in marriage civilly and at churches that do not discriminate--like the one HE belongs to.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jimmy-carter-supports-same-sex-marriage-as-he-launches-his-new-bible

President Carter told Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, senior religion editor of The Huffington Post:

Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things – he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies. (Emphasis added.)

However, he said he drew the line, “maybe arbitrarily, in requiring by law that churches must marry people.”

“If a church decides not to, then government laws shouldn’t require them to,” he said, adding his own church accepts “gay members on an equal basis.”

When Raushenbush pressed him about whether he believed the Bible is God’s word, Carter answered, “the basic principles of the Bible are taught by God, but written down by human beings deprived of modern day knowledge. So there is some fallibility in the writings of the Bible. But the basic principles are applicable to my life and I don’t find any conflict among them.”

“There are many verses in the Bible that you could interpret very rigidly,” Carter said, “and that makes you ultimately into a fundamentalist.”

See how they spun his position and made it seem like he was "endorsing" Texas's "right" to be bigoted? He wasn't doing that at all. He said it's a state's issue--and that is a fact. It is. Even if you get married by a federal judge, the marriage LICENSE is issued by the state where the marriage occurs.

[theHandpuppet]

18. First of all, I apologize for the link to that particular source

I had no idea it was a right wing site and should have checked the veracity of my source. My only excuse is that it was very late, I was really beat and didn't do my usual cross check for other sources. Having said that and now having had the opportunity to look for those other sources, I see the interview has been published/discussed in dozens of other papers and websites sans any right wing connections.

Other than that, I can only second what Behind the Aegis has posted throughout this thread.

[MADem]

19. It's not your fault--they do a very good job of covering their roots.

I strongly disagree with BTA's take on Carter so I will have to disagree with you as well. I have posted links that decisively prove that Carter is not anti-LGBT, in fact, he fully supports marriage equality, but it certainly does benefit a right wing rag to make him appear that way by mangling his views to make it appear as though he is a supporter of discrimination when he is not.

They get page clicks, Carter gets crapped on. Win-win for them.

The bottom line is this-States control the issuance of marriage licenses, and they are, like it or not, going to make the decision, either by direct input from voters, or by judges elected by voters or selected by officials the voters have put in office. Yelling at Carter for making it plain that this is how the system works isn't fair to him, particularly when his stated viewpoints are pro-equality in all its forms. You notice that they don't mention his full endorsements of equality or his membership in a church that supports full equality in their piece--that would ruin the slant they want to advance.

[dbackjon]

33. That is exactly what he said

Did you LISTEN to the interview?

[MADem]

35. He made a statement of fact. He didn't click his heels and rub his hands together with glee.

It may "offend" some people to realize this, but "states' rights" is what ADVANCED the equality issue. The Federal government sat on their DOMAss for years and had absolutely NO interest in advancing equality for anyone.

In fact, had not state after state after state after state exercised their state's particular "right" to practice equality and issue licenses to whomever they damn well pleased, DOMA be dammed, that DOMA law would still be on the books. By now, had no state exercised their "right," laws against equality might have been STRENGTHENED at the federal level, not obviated.

If states' rights are always a bad thing, is is bad that so many states chose to go down the path of equality? Even when DOMA was still on the books?

[Aerows]

65. Apparently, opinions are facts

That seems to be what you are saying.

[William769]

68. You are wrong and Jimmy carter is wrong. Let me repeat that, you are wrong and Jimmy Carter is wrong

And whats really scares the hell out of me is that he is a Former President saying what he said.

This is exactly what he said “If Texas doesn’t want to have gay marriage, then I think that’s a right for Texas people to decide.” and here is a video of the interview so no one can say it was taken out of context http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/27/jimmy-carter-texas-doesnt-want-gay-marriage-thats-right-texas-people/ I don't give a rats ass what his personal belief is what matters is what he says publicly and not only what her said in public hurtful, it was WRONG!

This Country was founded on freedoms not restricting them.

I have read all your posts in this thread and I find it really strange that you have used the argument that you are using. According to you if a State wants to ban interracial marriage, it can. That argument doesn't hold water and the U.S. Supreme Court has said so just as they will undoubtedly eventually do with Gay marriage.

The U.S. has a long tradition of expanding peoples rights, not taking them away. This has nothing to do with the ERA or passing a amendment guaranteeing us the right to marry (we are already guaranteed that right by the U.S. Constitution just as was the case in Loving vs. Loving, we Just need SCOTUS to come out and say so).

After your posts in this thread I am actually ashamed to have called you friend all these years, and I am really ashamed at Jimmy Carter right now a man who should know better.

Remember this, saying what he said gives ammunition to the other side to make their case for bigotry and Jimmy Carter just helped them a little bit more. Some angels have lost their wings over this cluster fuck.

People need to remember this, the State has no right to discriminate and anyone who think's so can go fuck them self!

[Aerows]

71. Well stated.

Coming in here attempting to educate "the gay people" on how emotional, dull and unfamiliar we all are with law was repugnant.

I don't need that brand of patronizing, or any as a matter of fact!

[marym625]

20. I'm with you there

[Zenlitened]

29. When states use their laws to discriminate...

...then, yeah, saying "let the states decide" is giving bigotry a pass.

We all know that states issue marriage licenses, that's not exactly a revelation. The issue is about who may and may not obtain one... and why. An issue being decided at the federal level, in the federal courts.

I sure hope Carter was misquoted, because there is NO defense for that statement. Muttering "states rights" has ALWAYS been a cop-out and a dodge when it comes to marriage equality. No matter who's muttering it.

[LostOne4Ever]

41. Generally I like Carter, but he is way off here

People don't get to vote on rights, that is why they are called rights.

State's rights might help get social movements started, but ultimately they help bigots keep their intolerance enshrined in law and do more to prevent change than help it.

[unblock]

51. he also said he didn't want the government telling churches who to marry

which is idiotic, because no one's talking about that. churches always have been and will continue to be free to marry or not marry whoever they want. they can discriminate on the basis of race or how much of a "donation" you've made.

my own brother had a tough time finding a rabbi who would perform his marriage ceremony because he was adopted at the age of 6 weeks. the only religion he ever knew was judaism and the only mother he ever knew was a jew, but couldn't prove his *birth* mother was a jew so many rabbis refused to perform the ceremony.

completely stupid, but the point is, no church is being forced to perform any ceremony they don't want to.


carter's ill-informed about this issue, and ill-informed about it being a state's prerogative to deny access to federal benefits to a subset of its people.

ultimately, i think even today's right-wing supreme court will not fight this. they can't roll back the states that already have it, and it's really just unworkable to have people married in some states but not married when they travel through other states, or to force people to go to different states in order to get a federal benefit.

[bigwillq]

52. I don't agree with his statement.

[Aerows]

57. Carter is way off base here

Very disappointing.

[Prophet 451]

69. Then he is wrong

On many issues, I admire Jimmy Carter and will continue to admire him. But on this issue, he's flat wrong. Human rights are not subject to the whim of the mob.

[Aerows]

70. +1 billion

Human rights are not subject to the whim of the mob or the state, for that matter.

[randys1]

76. NO state, no person shall take away someone else's rights, period. As Americans we should be

willing to do ANYTHING to maintain that ALL have the SAME rights.

[Aerows]

77. Precisely

but that escapes some folks that wear partisan colored glasses. TWO people in this thread objected to the fact that we expressed our disappointment. Two. And neither of them are gay, and saw fit to come into the LGBT group and tell us we are wrong for objecting to bigotry.

[randys1]

78. I learned a while back that since I am neither Gay or Black/Minority, or a Woman for that matter

my opinion about issues effecting these groups is meaningless at best, harmful at worst.

So I did something unusual for today, I listened to what my Black and Latino and Gay friends said, I NEVER disagreed with THEIR LIFE EXPERIENCES by spouting off some anecdotal story meant to deny their experience, and I kept my mouth shut and listened, still do.

If the Gay community says Jimmy Carter's comments are bigoted, then they are.

I dont think Jimmy is intentionally being bigoted anymore than any 90 yr old white, southern male would be, in fact far less than most, but he is wrong here, it is that simple.

He has done many great things for civil and human rights, but he can be wrong once in a while too.

When I say "intentionally bigoted" this is all about white privilege and straight privilege, someone who never has to deal with life as Gay or Black cant understand how their ignorant opinion can just be wrong...i wish there was a better way to say this...

Jimmy is not ignorant and he may be talking about this legally speaking, regardless of all that it is NOT OK for ANY state in the USA to legalize bigotry and take away civil rights.

And Jimmy, if Texas is legally allowed to take away civil rights, then we best change the god damn law or Constitution, cuz that aint right.

[Aerows]

79. Thank you

That was well said!