Obama's stance on gay marriage is reminiscent of Jim Crow segregation

[FM Arouet666]

Obama states that he is against gay marriage, but for civil unions that offer the same benefits as traditional marriage.

That sounds an awful lot like separate but equal. And looking at pages about the Jim Crow era I was struck by the following line.

"The facilities and social services exclusive to African-Americans were of lower quality than those reserved for whites"

Isn't President-elect Obama advocating for a lower quality institution for homosexual couples? You can have civil union, but not marriage. Marriage is sacred, marriage is too good for homosexuals.

Ironic.

[Edubb]

1. He's a politician, and that means sometimes, he must be political

[Antennas]

2. You're attributing the first black President's stance on marriage to Jim Crow segregation?

This place is starting to jump the shark.

[FM Arouet666]

3. Yep, shocking.

Civil rights is civil rights.

[cali]

4. it's not quite as simple as that, but in any case had Obama come out for

marriage for gays and lesbians, you'd now be looking at President-elect John McCain and VP-elect, Sarah Palin.

Would that satisfy you?

No one running for prez this year was pro gay marriage.

[gauguin57]

40. Dennis Kucinich supports same-sex marriage!

From his Website: "I believe that equality of opportunity should be afforded to all Americans regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. For that reason I support the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons to have the full protections and rights afforded under civil law including the right to marry the person of their choice."

[DrCory]

5. Give It Time...

I've been around long enough to realize that in regard to fundamental changes in social attitudes, incremental steps seem to produce the best results. And I think that's exactly where he's going on this issue. Remember, we want sustainable change, not backlash.

"Obama states that he is against gay marriage, but for civil unions that offer the same benefits as traditional marriage."

That's better than what we have now!

[FM Arouet666]

13. Agreed

I have no doubt that 50 years from now people will look back and think of our time as one of reluctant change, much like we now look back upon the civil rights movement of the 60s. Not bashing pragmatism, just pondering questions.

[kevinbgoode]

16. All marriages are civil marriages now. Why manufacture some new term?

Those who advocate the institution of religious tyranny be codified into state and federal law really bother me. . .

CIVIL means just that - it is not supposed to recognize any preference of religious doctrine. That's one reason why all marriages are civil marriages already. These people who scream they should have exclusive rights to the term "married" for religious reasons need to be kicked out of state recognition.

Ever notice that the same people who claim a "religious" reason for "marriage" don't want to be held legally responsible for adhering to the marriage and divorce policies of their church?

[DrCory]

18. Good Point.

"All marriages are civil marriages now. Why manufacture some new term?"


I'm assuming using the term "union" is a strategy. A "benign" term which doesn't provoke quite as much reactionary backlash as the word marriage?

[kevinbgoode]

21. The "reactionary" backlash originates with certain "religious"

denominations which are using state constitutions to discriminate against OTHER religious denominations. After all, some churches DO marry same-sex couples. What right does one denomination have to finance campaigns to remove other religions from practicing THEIR beliefs?

One of the most heinous things about these amendments is how outrageous the proponents lean on THEIR "religious" beliefs, as if the state is held hostage by a cabal of dominionist institutions. The LDS, for example, has NO INHERENT INTEREST in who the state licenses to marry. . .Just like the Catholics and various other religious institutions, they have always exercised the freedom to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for those outside of their faith. Always.

So the LDS, by launching repeated and huge campaign drives to amend state constitutions to remove the constitutional rights of gay citizens AND attack other denominations, claims they have an "inherent interest in the STATE definition of marriage." WHY? The state has been marrying couples forever which the Church refused to perform a ceremony for. . .and how many times was it sued? Duh. And yet we are supposed to believe that suddenly one group of denominations has this inherent interest in preventing OTHER denominations from performing a legal marriage service? Worse, that these same denominations have an inherent interest in waging a war against the Constitution which promises EQUAL PROTECTION simply because they don't like someone else's marriage?

They talk a lot about how the people should "decide" about redefining marriage. But in the two states in which THEIR brand of marriage has been instituted (covenant marriage), there was no popular vote. It was shoved through the legislatures by wingnut representatives offering a "voluntary, two-tier system" where those subscribing to "covenant" marriage are required to jump through many more hurdles to sever their state contract. Why haven't these been challenged, particularly when so few people have volunteered to enter this wingnut-fundie scheme?

It just outrages me when I read the posts of some people who are now whining that the poor Mormons are being persecuted - when it was the Mormons who are financing the persecution of other religious beliefs by removing the constitutional right to marry and voiding the equal protection clause of the state constitutions. And worse - they are arrogant about it. In one news article about the California campaign, the spokesmodel for supporting Proposition 8 said we had nothing to complain about since they weren't going after (like they do in OTHER states) domestic partner laws.

I'm sorry - but it's religious tyranny in my book. And it is WAY past time people started paying attention to tyranny masked as "religious freedom."

[democracy1st]

6. ignorant a.. post

[onefreespiritedchick]

7. Seriously, flamebait.

Simply absurd.

[FM Arouet666]

9. Absurd? Seriously, you can be dismissive if you like

But civil unions are just another way of saying separate but equal in my book. Pragmatism may warrant a compromise at this stage in the game, but we all should understand that it is a compromise.

[cali]

10. it's just not quite the same. First of all, civil unions are about rights

not facilities. Of course ending Jim Crow was more than about integrating facilities. Secondly, civil unions can be a stepping stone. I'll wager that VT within the next two legislative sessions, passes a marriage for all law. In which case, VT will be the first state to institute gay marriage via the legislative process rather than the judicial one. If, as expected, this happens, it civil unions here, will have served to have paved the way.

Sure, civil unions are a compromise, but they're stepping stones. Jim Crow laws were nothing of the kind.

[FM Arouet666]

12. Jim Crow laws were about keeping the status quo

So your point is well taken. Obama's position is more akin to 'don't ask don't tell' which I suspect will come to an end under his administration, and as such, can be seen as a stepping stone.

On the other hand, we really don't know what Obama is thinking, whether civil unions are, in his mind, the end of the conversation. A christian liberal might adopt such a position and this would be more like Jim Crow, separate but equal.

And I am not against compromise, I am taking an extreme position, not as flame bait as others have suggested, but to try and define in my own mind what are the bounds of this argument. The last time I posted for compromise, as you suggested, I got reamed.

Just trying to see all sides of this argument.

[skepticscott]

8. This is not about facilities or accomodations

If the law says that gay couples have the same rights of hospital visitation, inheritance and everything else, how is that not equal? If gay couples are free to call themselves married (as they are now and always have been), and if the people who know and care about them recognize that status, what's missing? Only the word that religious right bigots, faceless government bureaucrats and other total strangers apply to their marriage...why would they care?

[FM Arouet666]

11. I can only guess..

I think gay and lesbian people care because it is more than just a word, marriage. By demanding that they accept a civil union instead of a marriage, they are in essence being told to accept second class citizenship. Yes, most if not all of the rights attached to marriage are available to them, but they are still not completely equal. A gilded cage is still a cage. Second class citizenship in American history has not been very kind. Ask african americans, women, native americans, hispanic americans or any other minority you can thinks of. I suspect that if I were gay I would be as vocal as many in the gay and lesbian community are about this issue.

[skepticscott]

22. But what does it mean

to "accept" a marriage? A government can grant rights that are embodied in a civil union and those can be accepted, but a marriage can't be granted from outside. It can only be made by the two people involved, and they are free to call it whatever they wish.

[FM Arouet666]

46. I see your point but.

There is a difference between a civil union that is called a marriage by all involved and a marriage granted by the state. Yes, legally those granted a civil union have exactly the same rights and benefits, but the state is still saying that those granted civil unions cannot have a 'marriage' in the eyes of the state. Why?

Are gay couples not as good as straight couples? Not worthy of the designation 'marriage'? Clearly, they are not the SAME. We call them equal in civil union, but those who refuse to allow gay couples to 'marry' are holding on to the notion that gay couples are just not the same. Not a valid union. A bit perverted, but we will try to tolerate it.

Would you want to be perceived as a bit perverted, not quite right, not worthy of a "REAL" marriage? How do you think society will treat these 'not quite right' couples bonded in civil union?

I suspect society will treat them like it does everyone who is left of mainstream, with good old american discrimination. I see very clearly why gay couples want "marriage". Because it is the right thing to do.

[Ms. Toad]

27. It is about facilities and accommodations...

No civil union (or domestic partnership or registered partnership), anywhere in the world, is equal to marriage. Most of them are expressly not equal - either by expressly listing the subset of marital rights to which the civil union entitles the couple OR by expressly excluding certain marital rights from those granted by civil unions.

Even those that purport to be equal are not - such as Vermont. Vermont's civil unions are not recognized outside of Vermont - Vermont's marriages are. Vermont's civil unions are not entitled to the federal rights associated with marriage - Vermont's marriages are. The same goes for civil unions in every other state or country that has implemented a "separate but 'equal' status."

To make civil unions that are truly equal you would have to first create them in every political jurisdiction (including by amending every statute which used marriage or a marriage derived term) and then you would need re-litigate all of the non-statutory rights associated with marriage to make it clear that those rights also apply to civil unions - in every state individually. (It is not automatic - courts presume that if a different term is used, the difference was deliberate and must overcome that presumption before the terms can be treated identically.)

After that, you would have to relitigate - or establish by amending 50+ state statutes, federal statute(s), and international statutes - that civil unions must to be recognized across state and country borders.

In contrast, since there already is at least one state which permits same gender marriage and at least one Country which permits same gender marriages, procedurally, all that needs to happen for same gender marriage to be available to every couple in the United States is for two cases to be decided by the Supreme Court - one mandating that states cannot discriminate in their recognition of marriages from other states and one mandating that states cannot discriminate in their recognition of marriages from other countries.

You may have noticed that the entirety of what is required for marriage equality is merely the of last (underlined portion above) of MANY steps that it would require to establish a new and truly equal status of civil union for same gender couples within the United States.

(Note: I am NOT advocating bring the two federal cases now, even though there are couples already married who have the legal standing to do so. The current composition of the court needs to change before bringing federal cases for mandatory cross border recognition of either marriage or civil unions. I am merely pointing out that (1) separate is not equal, (2) the difference is about facilities, accommodations, tax benefits, estates, adoption rights, etc., and (3) the procedural steps necessary to create truly equal civil unions are far more complex than those advocating it understand.)

[skepticscott]

37. My post was premised

on all that you had outlined (however difficult and involved) having been done, though you lay out the difficulties much better than I could have. But let's say for the sake of argument that a shortcut was taken and a Constitutional amendment was passed saying that "Those entering into civil unions in any state shall enjoy the full and complete rights enjoyed by married couples under the statutes of whatever state they may reside in, etc....." or whatever legalese would be required. Ok, not terribly likely, but if it were to happen, and if the law were to give gay couples everything they want in the way of rights, but the relationships were still called two different things, marriages and civil unions, and that was the ONLY difference, would that still be unequal?

[Ms. Toad]

38. Yes.

When I go to Mexico with my civil union, I am not legally related to my spouse. When I go to Mexico with my marriage my spouse and I are married. Marriage is not only reciprocally recognized within the United States, but is also reciprocally recognized internationally. Civil unions/domestic partnerships/other non-marital relationships have recognition by the consent of the receiving nation - not the automatic recognition which marriage is granted.

Under your theoretical constitutional amendment, civil unions from other countries would likely be recognized in the US.

If you could work out the details internationally by amending a bunch of other governing documents, they still wouldn't be equal - at least for a good number of years - because civil unions would be subject to harassing litigation. Cases that would be quickly resolved (or never brought) in relation to marriage would have to be fully litigated when brought in relation to civil unions because the matter has not yet been been reviewed by a court with respect to civil unions. (validity of common law civil unions, whether adoption by a civil union step-parent who subsequently dies qualifies that child to participate in the per stirpes distribution of her step-grandmother's estate, etc.)

[stray cat]

14. Marriage is a religious institution isn't it?

[kevinbgoode]

17. hmm..and government shall not pass laws respecting an establishment of religion

. . .nor favor one religion over another. . .since there are churches which marry same-sex couples, maybe the government should be sued for attempting to establish one religious doctrine over another.

[LostinVA]

19. No, it isn't -- it's 100% a civil institution

[LostinVA]

20. No, it isn't -- it's 100% a civil institution

[kenny blankenship]

25. Well if it that's all it was, all the fuss would be solved very simply

Many churches are already happy to marry gay couples, they just lack permission to do it from the state.

[justiceischeap]

31. A history on same-sex marriage... marriage is not a "religious" institution

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

[MountainLaurel]

35. Guess I'm not married then?

Since no deities were involved in my wedding, vows, etc.

[Johonny]

41. yes and a civil institution

thus the massive confusion on this issue. The same name is used in religious institutions and the state and federal government. It does make some sense to create a new term civil marriage to remove civil unions from religious ceremonial marriage. If you removed the religious sanctification associated with civil recognized marriage it would end a lot of the opposition. The problem with this is the hundreds of years of law based on the term marriage... People that actually understand the first amendment have no problems with the issue, however the people that dislike the first amendment the most, not surprisingly hate civil define marriage institution.

[FM Arouet666]

45. Ok what if it is?

Then why does our secular government protect a religiously defined institution? The church interpretation of marriage is different from the state interpretation. The church talks about the sanctity of marriage, invokes god and such. The state only really cares about taxes and other legal ramifications of two people joining together in a contract.

So, the state has to decide. Dump the term marriage for civil union for everyone, or redefine marriage as a secular contract between two people, any two people of consenting age. And leave the religious definitions to the churches.

Oh, like that whole separation of church and state thing.

[stray cat]

15. No more mixed drinking fountains, restaurants, schools and sit at back of bus

versus full legal rights for civil unions but without the title of "marriage"?

[Recursion]

23. The anti- people I know say that gay people have every right to marry

That is, "a gay guy can get married, but marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, so they probably won't want to".

I understand the emotion over this. I'm straight so it's not my call, but I'd rather work for the actual rights than a particular word.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Reminds me more of Jimmy Carter's views on the subject.

Jimmy Carter was a firm believer in equal rights, but had to appeal to bigots in order to win political office.

[cliffordu]

26. Kinda obvious you don't understand what Jim Crow was all about....

Too bad....Fail

[Ichingcarpenter]

28. I'm tired of these race baiting posts

they do nothing to promote change.

[cliffordu]

30. Some here would like to create division and promote hatred.

I wonder if the OP did ANYTHING to stop 8.

:shrug:

[FM Arouet666]

44. Ridiculous.

Compare the plight of one minority to another and what you have is race baiting. You sound like a republican. If my comparison is invalid, homosexuals are being treated as 'separate but equal' when told to accept civil unions instead of marriage, then please enlighten me. How is my interpretation in error. Your not being very helpful to the argument.

[LittleClarkie]

29. Who did you support in 2008's primaries?

How about 2004?

[justiceischeap]

32. As I see it more liberal leaning politicians are going to use the phrase "civil union"

to do an end-round. Do I like it? No but on my more optimistic days I think as long as we gets the rights, the gay community can frame the dialog. As I posted in another thread if I were to get hitched, I wouldn't go around saying "I was just civil unioned," I'd say I was married, as I'm sure my friends and family would. Just like people who get hitched at the JP, they don't say "I just got Justice of the Peace'd," they tell everyone they got married.

On other days, my more pessimistic days, I saw I want the word "marriage."

[jonnyblitz]

33. I find it bizarre he believes states should decide this issue

considering "states rights" was the excuse the southern racists used to keep the african american community down. this is a strange stance to have for an African American president.

[IndianaJones]

34. it is not so bizarre, since he opposes marriage on religious grounds. nt.

[MountainLaurel]

36. You'd think

The same thing occurred to me, especially since I know folks for whom the federal issues are the greater need (in terms of immigration rights, etc.)

[kwassa]

39. This is one of the stupidest and most historically ignorant OPs I've ever read.

more flame-bait racist bullshit.

[FM Arouet666]

43. How in the hell is it racist.

Let me guess, I am not allowed to compare the plight of homosexuals to the plight of african americans. Is that it? So, the comparison is racist? You sound like Bill O'Reilly when he goes nuts about people comparing current events to events of the 40s. If you cannot articulate why my comparison of the denial of marriage to homosexuals is at least a little bit similar to the 'separate but equal' policies of the Jim Crow era, then don't bother responding to my posts.

Oh, and don't drone on about how the suffering of one group exceeds the suffering of another so the comparison is invalid.

Is it racist to note that 70% of african americans voted Yes on prop 8? Is it racist to note the irony in that?

Be a bit more constructive in your comments.

[GeorgeGist]

42. I dunno ...

maybe civil unions would have a lower divorce rate than marriage.