Obama: Civil Unions for GLBT couples should be given all the federal rights

[cali]

and responsibilities that are given to hetero married couples. Obama said this very clearly in his "college bowl" appearance tonight. No parsing, no hemming or hawing. Has Hillary said this? No, it's not marriage which I support, but it would be a HUGE step in the right direction.

[maddiejoan]

1. yes

she has.

[cali]

6. could you provide a link, please?

[maddiejoan]

13. oh please

find it yourself --she's been saying her entire campaign she is for "traveling rights" between states on the issue of same-sex marriage.

It's practically part of her regular stump speech.

But since you're being an arse about it --

http://www.outfordemocracy.org/arch/000650.html

She's also said she would not oppose same-sex marriages in NYS

[libnnc]

11. Where? When?

Gravel? Yes.

Kucinich? Absolutely.

Obama? No

Hillary? ..............?

[u2spirit]

56. MaddieJoan

As an Obama supporter, one of the things that I have no problem with Clinton is her support of GLBT rights. Thanks for pointing this out.

[JuniperLea]

2. When people ask for marriage and are given civil union instead...

There's a problem. If civil union was what this was all about, there would have been no problem in the first place.

Edited to say... of course Hillary has said this!

:eyes:

[RichardRay]

10. I've always wondered about the semantics of that...

When I hear 'marriage' I think 'church', or 'religion', or 'divine blessing of the union'. I don't think 'civil rights', or 'legal rights' or even 'equity'.

Churches have NOTHING to say about the legal status of a couple (of whatever gender identifications or numbers) who decide to create a union in the civil sense, and the state has no business basing its recognition of the union on what happens in a church.

What are the features of 'marriage' that are non-religious that are not provided by 'unions'? Take the ones that are legal and civil issues of equity and put them in the 'union' instrument and let the churches do as they will.

Now, that seems to make sense to me. But, as I am straight, male, old, solitaire and not a member of a spiritual tradition that sanctifies marriages, there may be parts I'm missing :-).

[Kittycat]

19. As a hetero, "married" woman, I agree.

My husband and I were talking about this and both shared our independent opinion on this - and both feel that "marriage" is a religious act, and civil unions is a government recognized act (going to the Justice/court house). Where my minister has the right to refuse marriage, I don't feel the government has the right to refuse unions (which is the same thing to me, once you remove religion.

Now I'm sure someone from the LGBT community might have a different opinion - but my opinion has always been that Marriage is a religious act, and unions are not.

[JuniperLea]

30. There are spiritual and religious gay people too...

They just want equality.

[RichardRay]

38. Isn't that between them and their church / temple / pastor / congregation

etc., etc.? I don't want a religion's rules to run civil society, and I equally don't want civil society telling believers what to believe. If people choose to believe total hate saturated BS that's their right, as long as they leave it in church. If they try to make laws that enforce their BS, that's instantly and completely out of bounds. It seems like a bright line to me...

[JuniperLea]

40. If that's the case, we shouldn't be using the word marriage in law at all...

We should all be under civil union rules.

That would be equality.

[Kittycat]

47. And I agree fully.

Being raised in a very religious church, I was just taught that only christians (right with god) were allowed to be married. All others had to have civil ceremonies at the court house (unless there was a church that would accept them - IE. Catholics, Jews, etc). It's just always been my perception that it's just this way. Just like the catholic church denies marriages for divorced couples without annulments.

ETA: I go to a UU church now, and they do recognize LGBT couples - unlike my parents church that will not. So I would assume by that same measure (since our pastor does perform LGBT dedications) - that she would perform legally recognized Civil Unions should that become law. But I do feel strongly that this is a decision left best to the church on whether they want to personally perform those ceremonies or not. Mainly because I strongly support everyone's right to practice whatever religion or belief system they want.

[Zhade]

59. I'm down with that compromise!

It's not like unions "blessed" by unproven gods are any more special than those that aren't!

[UALRBSofL]

51. I suppose from your post that you are discounting my church

I go to MCC and we worship just like any other church and it seems your suggesting the act of marriage is between a man and a woman and not a man-man or a woman-woman. Well, that's your opinion and your welcome to it but you are WRONG.

[JuniperLea]

28. I'm straight too... but, and this sounds icky and stupid...

Like, "some of my best friends are gay." ew.

I live in a very gay-friendly city, maybe even moreso than San Francisco... you can't live here and not know a bunch of gay people... I have had three gay bosses spanning 8 years. Gay couples are so much like straight couples it's hilarious! And dead serious. They just want to be treated like the rest of the human population, and I think they have that right.

[Zhade]

58. To me, someone who (hopefully, I'm kinda cute!) this would affect...

...it doesn't matter if it's called a marriage if the exact same rights are involved.

Besides, I and others will just call it marriage anyway, and if people don't like it they can go fish!

[Brundle_Fly]

67. yup its not the marriage thats important

the the rights.

and as the government all they can really do it supply couples the "rights" afforded by marriage, if you want marriage take on the churches, because that constitutionally is NOT the right of government.

[cali]

12. then you have no problem posting a link to where she's said this

right?

[BklynChick]

3. I love Obama, but I don't agree w/his position. A civil union and marriage

have very different rights. Civil unions fall way short in this dept. They both need to man/woman up and be for gay marriage.

[cali]

5. Actually.... it depends

In Vermont, civil unions bestow every single right and responsibility that marriage does. And there hasn't been a single case in 8 years of anyone being denied the rights that the state bestows on both civil unions and marriage. That is, of course, not true of federal rights. And we're working hard here to move toward marriage. Frankly, I'm for civil unions for all, making marriage a religious institution.

[BklynChick]

7. ok, maybe in Vermont but not in most states. I object strongly to the double-standard.

Marriage for all or Civil Union for all.

[anigbrowl]

14. Surely the point he is making is that Civil unions should not fall short

and should confer the same rights. I'm pro gay marriage, but I'd say that getting on the same legal footing is the most important thing, as opposed to the semantics of the word 'marriage'. It's not that easy to just legislate away centuries of cultural tradition by redefining the word from its popular meaning. I think it'll be an easier thing to address if full legal rights are available via civil unions for a few years and people have time to get used to it and realise that the sky hasn't fallen.

[Liberal Veteran]

52. Yes. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

[Zhade]

60. His position appears to be that they SHOULD have the exact same rights.

NT!

[msongs]

4. he opposes gay marriage. nothing new here nt

[shadowknows69]

8. No one can appreciate baby steps

It always has to be all or nothing right?

[laconicsax]

15. Sure, let's tiptoe our way to equal rights. Maybe in 50-100 years we can revisit the issue.

The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment either extends to ALL citizens or it doesn't. The issue is that simple. Either homosexual couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples or they don't. Setting up civil unions essentially says, "Homosexual couples shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexual couples...They should have similar rights, but not equal rights."

[NJSecularist]

16. I understand what you are saying.

But a law needs to be enacted first. And the way to pass a law is to take baby steps. How do you propose passing such a law through Congress?

Some of you just think a law is magically going to appear and the Rethugs are going to let it pass through Congress without opposition.

[laconicsax]

33. And some of you think that a civil union law will just magially appear and face no opposition...

Obama's civil union idea will have to run the same gauntlet. The system he's proposing would have to be enacted as laws that either specifically lists every right granted by a civil union or does it by referencing existing marriage laws. How well do you think this will do? Will the homophobes in Congress just say, "sure, that sounds fine" and allow the bill(s) to pass unchanged, with every last right intact? How many will be removed in committee and how many stripped by amendment?

Marriage equality is a whole hell of a lot easier. The only legislative action needed to ensure it is a repeal of DOMA since the SC doesn't seem willing to review that blatantly unconstitutional law. Any legislation needed beyond that is already on the books:

Article 4 of the Constitution:

Section 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2:
1. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Repeal DOMA and individual states can't individually ban same-sex marriage. Every state would have to recognize same-sex couples and grant them equal rights.

[UALRBSofL]

55. Oh my God. Barney Frank as much as said this 10 years ago

Actually what he said was the LGBT community did not need to make issue of same sex marriage going into that election cycle because it would only hurt the party. So his favorability rating dropped with me. Now, here we are 10 years later and this issue is being ignored almost totally in the MSM in this election cycle. I also want to say I can't believe some of these posts that are not in favor of same sex marriage. This is just one part of the foundation of progressives.

[NJSecularist]

61. Just because we see the political impossibility of getting same-sex marriage laws

passed at this time doesn't mean we are not in favor of same sex marriage. I am. I wish there was an amendment passed tommorow. But there isn't, and it won't be. With a large majority in the Senate and the House, and a Democratic president who won't use his veto pen on these laws, we can get civil union laws past.

[RichardRay]

25. You might be the one to distinguish for me then...

What's the unacceptable part of 'marriage = religion' and 'union = law'?

I feel that marriages are performed by religious standards and that religions can pretty much do what they want to around that. On other hand, nothing a church does or doesn't do should have any bearing on how a person is treated in secular society. If some bunch of phobic fundies wants to say that they're not going to allow gay couples to march up to their altar then that's their right, just don't take it outside the doors of the church!

[laconicsax]

39. Marriage isn't a religious institution. It's a civil institution that's been co-opted by religion.

Non-religious, heterosexual couples enter into marriage all the time. There's this great myth about the origin of marriage and how it somehow has to do with religion and it's just a myth. Religion inserted itself into marriage.

[RichardRay]

42. Hmmmmm, I guess I'd have to see some source for that...

What I see in history is the opposite. Religion and government were tied inextricably together for a long time. One of the truly revolutionary things about the US Constitution was its explicit declaration that there was not and will never be an 'established' religion in this country. Other countries followed suit.

As that happened the institution of 'marriage' ended up straddling the fence, part was left in the state's purview to establish various civil rights and privileges, but the sanctification stayed with the church. It's still visible today when a couple has to get a civil license to form a union that gets called marriage whether a church is involved or not.

I just want the churches OUT of the game. Anybody who wants the civil and legal rights of union can get it at the courthouse. If you want to find somebody to sprinkle holy water or rice or whiskey on you to 'sanctify' it, that's up to you.

[laconicsax]

50. Marriage existed before any religion that claimed it.

Marriage also clearly exists outside of religious constructs. If you don't see it, consider the fact that if a couple wants to get married, they have to go through a legal process. The religious part (holding it in a church, having a religious leader officiate) is completely optional.

Religion only owns marriage for as long as people don't wake up and realize that it's a civil institution.

[Liberal Veteran]

53. Of course it probably existed before there was any legal construct too.

I agree that religion isn't necessary to marriage, but it has been so intertwined for thousands of years that marriage is still thought of by many as first a religious construct, then a secular one.

We have to deal with that reality.

[RichardRay]

64. OK, it's not my issue, except as a pure matter of equity..

Heck, my choice is to remain solitary, so marriage isn't an issue for me no matter how you cut it!

Given that, I'll support marriage, union and any other format those who want that framework choose; it's all fine with me.

[Withywindle]

54. My parents are strong atheists. They're married nonetheless.

They did it in a courthouse with no clergy anywhere near it, but that doesn't make a lick of difference to how they perceive themselves and how the community--and the law--treats them. The symbolic value of the word "marriage" is not religious at all - but it's important to many committed couples, including many atheist ones. It has to do with love and commitment, and people want a word that expresses that and doesn't sound like legalese.

IMO, what's important is that the rights be FEDERAL - i.e., none of this bullshit of denying hospital visits--or even hotel rooms--to couples in one state who are legally committed in another. If you're married in Massachusetts, you don't stop being married while you're driving through Oklahoma.

[anigbrowl]

26. If it were that simple, it could be resolved through the courts.

It isn't, as you know. Many other groups beside lgbt have acquired rights incrementally.

[laconicsax]

36. So...just because other groups had to fight tooth and nail for equal rights, then

the LGBT community should just shut up and wait for their turn to be equal citizens under the law? The standard waiting period seems to be between 50 and 100 years. Does that seem like a perfectly equitable solution to you.

The issue hasn't been resolved through the courts because the courts refuse to examine it. It would take an extraordinary interpretation of Article 4 and the 14th amendment to uphold DOMA.

[anigbrowl]

45. I don't agree with any of that.

the LGBT community should just shut up and wait for their turn to be equal citizens under the law?

No, I am just pointing out that it's not an easy goal to pursue and it might be better to make progress rather than insist everything comes in a single breakthrough. Please do not put words in my mouth.

The standard waiting period seems to be between 50 and 100 years. Does that seem like a perfectly equitable solution to you.

This is a silly argument, which doesn't take account of the fact that social change tends to accelerate or that different groups/causes can work in parallel rather than serially.

The issue hasn't been resolved through the courts because the courts refuse to examine it. It would take an extraordinary interpretation of Article 4 and the 14th amendment to uphold DOMA.

A federal court has examined it at least once, in 2004, in 'In re Kandu'. As it happens, I think your 14th amendment argument is misplaced, although I'm not a lawyer. Said amendment grants equal rights to individuals, but a marriage is a contract and not an individual. I realize that will seem hopelessly picky to you, but my intention is to point out the nature of the legal technicality rather than to suggest approval of it. I don't consider DOMA to be a just law, but it's one among many laws I consider unjust.

I quite agree that the current situation is unfair, but unfairness is widespread. Very rarely is it resolved overnight.

[laconicsax]

65. Read:

The 14th amendment goes like this:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Re-read that second sentence:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Marriage is a legal entity. DOMA allows states to make laws that abridge the privileges of citizens and deny people within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The full faith and credit clause (Article 4, Section 1) goes like this:

Article 4 of the Constitution:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

DOMA is so clearly in violation of this it's almost laughable.

The 'In re Kandu' suit was based on a challenge of DOMA on aspects of the Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth amendments. The challenge was not made on the full faith and credit clause, nor the 14th amendment. The decision upheld DOMA since in their opinion, it didn't clearly violate those three amendments as they pertain to the challenge and aspects of their decision were supported by precedent. The court found that there is no inherent 'right' for any individuals to wed and therefore, DOMA, strictly speaking, doesn't violate any rights.

[shadowknows69]

27. Personally I'm for abolishing the word "marriage" as a legal term

They are all civil unions, ratified by the state, not the church. No one can tell you what to call it.

[JuniperLea]

41. Haha! I just said that down thread...

Yep, whatever makes it equal.

[Zhade]

63. My impression is that Obama accepts that civil unions must confer the exact same rights.

I don't care if my rights are called a "civil union", because I'd have the same rights and still call it a marriage anyway.

[NeedleCast]

35. That's been an albatross of the Democratic party for decades

Many in our party need to learn that politics is seldom an all or nothing deal.

[shadowknows69]

43. Seems to me an albatross was a ship's good luck til some idiot killed it

Yes, I've read a poem. Try not to faint.
-Mal+Coleridge

<http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Rime+of+the+Ancient+Mariner>

<http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Serenity+(film)>

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Clinton Courted The Endorsement Of A Man Who Backs Execution Of Gays

Richard Mellon Scaife.

"Scaife also funded the Western Journalism Center, headed by Joseph Farah. Farah has been connected to reconstructionism, a movement to replace judicial law with Christian Old Testament law. The organization is antigay, and would move to punish "practicing homosexuals" by sentencing them to death."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mellon_Scaife

American Sharia! Isn't that special!

[MethuenProgressive]

22. Donnie "All Gays Will Burn In Hell" McClurkin had an endorsement to court?

Oh, I forgot.
IOKIIO.

[MethuenProgressive]

17. cali, why are there no links in the OP to back up your claims?

[NJSecularist]

18. It was on Hardball. How do you propose finding a link for TV show?

[MethuenProgressive]

20. Are you cali? I was asking cali.

I'm certain she can speak for herself.

[NJSecularist]

21. Don't try to be cute. It's not intelligent in the least. You know what her answer will be. n/t

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

34. tut tut

do you really think I won't do anything about your over the line comment? Clue, babes, I'm not meek or mild.

:hi:

[sniffa]

46. Damn!

I didn't get to alert on it before it got zapped. x(

[Forkboy]

62. I didn't even get to READ it.

I see your x( and raise you a x(

[cali]

32. I heard it on Hardball .College Bowl

I assume that there will be a transcript up shortly.

[UALRBSofL]

66. cali I believe you

when someone says they just heard something on TV I pretty much accept it as true. I do the same thing. When I hear something on TV I might post it as well.

[IndianaJones]

23. Obama: religious traditions behind my objection to gay marriage. nt.

[EmilyAnne]

29. Yes!! I just heard it. He was very clear, said everything you mentioned twice.

[noel711]

37. Most of our discussion of 'marriage' is semantics...

The whole concept of 'marriage' versus 'civil union'
is bogus.

We not longer live in the middle ages when 'marriages'
arranged political alliances between families with power
and riches.

Throughout history, for a 'marriage' to be legal,
all that needs happen is for the couple to speak these
words (I marry/join to you) with a public witness.

During the middle ages, the Roman Church thought they were missing
out on something, and added 'marriage' to their list of sacraments,
and this rendered 'marriage' with some mighty heavy holy baggage.
Like you needed a priest to make it 'legal.' But not really...

In our western, post-enlightenment society, 'marriage' is simply
a legally approved civil bond that forms a family.
That is why in European countries, a 'wedding' is performed in a
civil office before there is any churchy blessing.

Now I know the Bible thumpers will come out of the woodwork
claiming some 'biblical injunction' about what God says about it.
But God says very little about it. Even Jesus says very little about it,
as the roles of men and woman are vastly different today than in the time of
Moses.. and later of Jesus and Paul. The family is the biblical unit
of community... Most biblical unions were arranged alliances between tribes,
most biblical unions in the Old TEstament were between one man of property and
many wives... Is that the kind of 'biblical marriage' that some of these fundies
want to go back to?

Modern marriage evolved into 2 people based on the greco-roman model.
In fact, the word marriage is kind of ... archaic. Based on a patriarchal model.
But in reality, most of western culture has developed a kind of civil union,
based on rights and legal responsibilities of an established community.
Probably the best we can do is follow the European model of leaving the
legal parts to the state, and if the couple wants a religious blessing,
they go to whatever faith for such a blessing.

Every clergyperson must follow the laws of the state, thus the priority of the
state in regard to just who is in charge.

Thus, civil unions for all...

[UALRBSofL]

44. cali what are you talking about?

Clinton has stated this message a long time ago that she wanted federal benefits extended to same sex couples. I'm curious as to why you are assuming Obama was the only candidate that supports this. It seems to me he's a little behind in delivering his message.

[Liberal Veteran]

49. Not at all, he said as much MONTHS ago.

This isn't something new.

[Liberal Veteran]

48. I don't really care what they call it as long as it's equivalent to marriage.

If they want call it codified domestic same gender partnership, as long as it is equivalent under the law to marriage, I really don't care.

You'll notice that very few of the much more progressive countries that we look up to as liberals call their's marriage either (Spain, Canada, Belgium, The Netherlands, and South Africa being the countries that do and neither Spain nor South Africa really tops my list of progressive countries).

[Zhade]

57. Thank you for posting this, Cali. It's a good first step for us.

NT!