I jI ust heard something remarkable come out of Barack Obama's mouth

[housewolf]

"There are over 1200 laws and regulataions" that create inequality between married and unmarried couples.

on Hardball, he was asked about his gay marriage. He stated that he didn't support gay marriage but does strongly support equality through civil unions. That's not remarkable in itself, but what WAS remarkable (to me) was his statement about how many laws and regulations are involved in creating the inequality.

I's sure I've never heard any politician highlight that before, or show any real understanding of just how unequal the situation is. Kudos to Barack Obama for taking advantage of a "teaching moment" and broadening the debate.



(I know, I know, "civil unions" is not ideal and it's not as much as everyone here would like, but rather than criticize him for not going that far, I'm choosing to acknowledge him for bringing something new to the debate. I hope you will too.)

[JayFredMuggs]

1. Gay rights people have been saying this for years!

Where have YOU been?

Did you really research this issue, or just get educated when someone as brilliant (and as straight) as Obama tells you the facts?

But nice to have you educated now on the issues.

Thanks for starting this thread.

[housewolf]

11. Well... gee... I guess...

I have some gay friends whom I love dearly but the issue of marriage has never been a topic a topic between us.


You know, your attitude of "Where have YOU been?" is really sort of insulting and uncalled for. There are probably plenty of things you know that I don't know. And vice-versa. While we may be walking on the same or similiar paths here, in the rest of our lives we ALL walk on our own paths and each of us has unique experiences. It's really not appropriate to respond to a post with in a judgmental and critical attitude such as that when it's someone about whom you really know nothing.

[JayFredMuggs]

16. So you are saying you know NOTHING about gay people?

But you support their causes, and don't know the issues they face in America?

If you can't educate yourself to the issues, what kind of a liberal are you? One who embraces causes without investigating the issues?

Sorry, I don't care how you are offended by my comments, only hope you resolve to educate yourself to the issues both you and I feel passionately about! I have self educated,you, not so much! But you chose to feel "insulted" by being admittedly LESS informed?


Oh dear, what value do you put on learning? None, when it comes to you, but you feel "insulted" when someone points this out to you?

How close are you to the issues gay people face every day in America? Oh, you only have them as friends in good times?

Educating one's self is not your responsibility, you want someone else who is straight to do that work for you?

[Shakespeare]

19. Dude, don't be so rude. No, she didn't say she "knew nothing about gay people."

I'd wager that there are a lot of GAY PEOPLE who aren't even aware just how extensive the injustices are.

She posted a very polite thread, very supportive of GLBT issues, and you jump all over her. Nice.

You are directing your (obvious) anger and resentment at the wrong person.

[XemaSab]

21. You can be outraged about an issue without knowing all the ins and outs

Torture, the death penalty, choice, health care, human rights in China... all issues that I consider myself DEEPLY concerned about.

Can I give you facts and statistics? No.

Am I on the right side on these issues? Yes.

Just because the author of the OP doesn't have a library of statistics in their head doesn't mean they're not a "real" supporter of equal rights for gay couples.

[housewolf]

23. No, I didn't say that at all...

What I didn't know is that there are some 1200 (or more) regulations & laws that apply only to married couples.

[housewolf]

29. This is really, really rude...

you know nothing about me or what I do or do not know about. Your attitude here is completely uncalled for.

Not everyone knows everything you do, and there are things I know about that you do not.

[roguevalley]

45. oh please. get over yourself. Housewolf is on your side. Who says

we have to be 'educated' on your issues and your life? What a rotten post. Bitterness does not help. Housewolf is on this right side of this issue. Allow them surprise at some of the content. Or do you really care if people look at this issue with compassion?

[cliffordu]

52. Hmmm....pretty craptastic response to a decent post.

I'm thinking maybe you come around to do a little hate mongering like some of those creepin'freepers.....

Why did you react that way?

constipated??

:hurts:

All better now, No??

:hi:

[Usrename]

67. It isn't just about gay people.

If you would bother to educate yourself about the subject you would know that.

Marriage discriminates against all kinds of unmarried folks, regardless of their sexuality.

[CitizenRob]

69. lay off, gay rights issues aren't everybodies first priority just becaues they're ours.

[snooper2]

72. you are a very bitter person...

imagine you are single eh?

[Voice for Peace]

25. Some people are just rude, and that's how it is, you can't change them.

Don't take it personally, that's the best thing.. take anything good from what they say and throw away the rest.

[roguevalley]

44. thank you, housewolf, for bringing this up/. I didn't know either. It is

not a huge issue in the middle of my life, even though I care about it a lot. You did a service.

[housewolf]

53. You're welcome, RougeValley

It's an important issue, and one that I do care about. I was floored when I heard that there were SO MANY laws and regulations creating such an inequality. I had no idea!

Thanks, too, for your other post, I appreciate how supportive so many have been here.

[BlooInBloo]

13. And the You're-Not-Outraged-Enough shotgun blast claims yet another victim...

.... in the 2,456th friendly fire incident this year.

Good job.

[ginnyinWI]

18. posts like this: this is what's wrong with DU now

People are always making it personal, questioning the other person's brains or loyalty or something. This is what makes DU a worse place to hang out. Is the sarcasm worth it, really?

[anigbrowl]

38. The point, which I think you missed...

is that Obama chose to discuss it on Hardball, where he could reach a very wide audience, as opposed to sticking with safer topics which he already knows will go over well.

And you know what? Although I support gay marriage, I don't know every last little thing about it, because it's not the #1 or the only issue that I care about. There are other things which are as much or even more important to me, and I'm guessing you're not as clued up on all of those as you are on the issues you care most about. I don't think you're going to increase your support by being condescending to people.

[JBoy]

50. Most over-the-top post of the week.

[anamandujano]

2. Kudos to his idea suppliers.

[Liberal Veteran]

31. Man. Did Obama piss in your Wheaties or something?

You think Clinton was the first person to come up with all her ideas?

[Voice for Peace]

33. LOL anamandujano,

I'm pretty sure he thinks for himself.

[anamandujano]

39. I'm positive he doesn't.

[Voice for Peace]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

no hard feelings

[woolldog]

3. I don't understand his position on this issue.

Why is he against gay marriage?

[littlebit]

4. Because he will lose a shit load of votes

if he says he is for it. A politician saying they are for civil unions but not marriage is trying to appease each side. Hillary does it also.

[davidinalameda]

20. Obama has said that he wants to fully repeal DOMA

Hillary doesn't

[Voice for Peace]

35. agree. it's unfortunate politics. I am pretty sure neither of them truly opposes it.

or if they do it's superficial and either of them would listen to reasoned arguments in favor.

[SwampG8r]

57. excuse me here

but marriage is traditionally a matter of church
states now finalize a marriage contract between men and women as a civil act
or essentially a civil union
so its not really weaseling to take this approach to the issue
perhaps the best solution is indeed to let civil authorities render civil unions
and let those who wish to be "married' in a religious sense deal with their church

just my 2 cents worth

[libnnc]

5. Not perfect enough.

I want perfection.



....oh well...

[stahbrett]

10. This is a classic case of real world vs. ideal world

In my ideal world, the government (federal and state) would not prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. In the real world, I think it will take another 20-30 years before that happens, BUT in the meantime we can move closer and closer to giving same-sex couples the same rights.

The reason I think it will take so long is simply due to the demographics... the older the voter, the more apt that voter is to be against same-sex marriages. So we basically need to wait until the older generations die off, replaced with more open-minded voters.

[cali]

6. ack, anyone who's been paying attention knows that

I've known it for over a decade.

[housewolf]

12. l refer you to my response to #1 above

[Cha]

15. Weren't you just saying that the "remarkable"

thing was that Obama was even saying that about the laws to make it harder for civil unions and using it as a "teaching moment"?

I agree with your post on "where have you been!?" type of reply.

[roguevalley]

46. you know what? I've been here a long time- friends and family

members gay- and I didn't know there were that many laws out there. Why in the bloody hell are you kicking at someone who is on your side of this? Not everyone is as personally invested in the minutia as others. They are still friends and allies.

[Cha]

47. Yeah..

:)

[roguevalley]

48. Ok

:)

[Cant trust em]

7. Damn. That's a crazy statistic.

Thanks for sharing.

[sandnsea]

8. Kerry did

He's where I heard it from first. In fact, 90% of what any Dem candidate has said this year came from Kerry first.

[dbonds]

9. All marriages should be changed to civil unions.

Then you can choose to get whatever religions marriage or handfasting or whatever on top of that.

[MH1]

27. Exactly. nt

[Justitia]

30. I like this. It's what is done in Western European countries where they aren't religiously insane

like this country.

[cliffordu]

49. DING DING DING We have a winner!!!

Exactly how I feel about it. Probably for the wrong reasons.


I'd change my marriage over to a civil union in solidarity if
civil unions for gay couples becomes a reality.

I want the church as far away from my 25 year marriage as possible, and as far as I'm concerned it's a negative that they "approve" of what my lovely wife and I have. It's got nothing to do with them.

Fuck them and the homophobic cross they rode in on.


:hi:

[FlaGranny]

54. Exactly what I was going to say,

but you said it first. Marriage is only a word that means joining together. All legal marriages are civil unions. All legal civil unions are marriages. The religious folks think they have a claim to the marriage word.

[LiberalAndProud]

14. I was impressed too.

The federal government does not now recognize civil unions. I will change that. (paraphrase)

Excellent!

[pkz]

17. The Feminists should have chg'd it

I have always wondered why the Feminist Movement did not handle this whole marriage thing.

They should have demanded that it was changed to "union" a long time ago. An equal union.
If in fact the biblical definition of marriage means one man, one woman, and all the rules that go with that one, like subservient to the husband.

They could have changed it to "union" and defining it would be more difficult, thus interpretation could be easier.

[JPZenger]

22. Equality is what matters, not the word marriage

What really matters is what Obama stressed - equality under the law. That can be achieved with a strong civil union law. Using the word gay "marriage" just gets people upset without achieving anything.

[Kber]

24. I'll be honest - I didn't know the extent of the legalized discrimination either.

Always glad to learn something new.

I work in HR for a company that provides benefits to domestic partners and the tax ramifications are mind boggling and, imo, designed to discourage companies from offering benefits to anyone other than straight, married families.

The current system and the refusal of the Fed gov't to recognize civil unions makes it burdensome to do the right thing by your employees (and society, generally).

I'm glad we do, but I'll be happier when the rest of the country falls in line.

KB

[Voice for Peace]

26. and for the record I didn't know about all those laws either, so your post is interesting to me.

I have lots of gay friends. And there are a zillion causes. Nobody knows everything about all of them.

[Liberal Veteran]

28. Obviously he is a homophobic bigot who hates the gay community.

Or so some of my fellow gay democrats have told me.

[libnnc]

36. he's not perfect enough

we must have perfection

[readmoreoften]

58. Oh yeah right like these current candidates are just 'less than perfect' or something.

Please. Gosh, sorry to ask that our candidates don't hang with the folks who're trying to fuck us over.

[libnnc]

63. well, then we have no one to vote for

are you staying home in November?

Can we get past this already? Do you want McCain to win? Nuclear holocaust is in our future if he does (he's fucking crazy enough). It's that serious. Obama isn't going to imprison us, he isn't going to brand us or herd us into cattle cars. Hillary has no better record than he does.

Let's stop this crap now. If McCain wins this election, we will have a sitting president who is not just a hawk, but one who is a mentally unstable hawk. Shrub is a stupid sociopath. A junkie. McCain is something much more dangerous. He's mentally damaged. You want him carrying the nuclear football? It's over for Hillary. We need to move on.

[me b zola]

32. K&R

It is unfortunate that some on this thread are attacking you for this post.

Keep yer head up!

[Liberal Veteran]

34. Thanks for the kick though. It might help to dispell some of that "Obama hates gay people" stuff.

Which is patently silly.

[Berry Cool]

37. "he was asked about his gay marriage"? HIS gay marriage??

NEWS FLASH! Barack Obama discovered to be bigamist, married to a woman AND a man! Second marriage a GAY marriage!!!! (Cue Fox News scandalous-breaking-news sting!) :rofl:

OK, just kidding.

[UALRBSofL]

40. There are several sections/laws in reference to DOMA as well

Hillary favors Civil Unions and federal benefits that extend to same sex marriage.

[WyLoochka]

41. I think the government should

get out of the "marriage" business entirely and relegate the matter to the churches, since most of the fuss basically originates from the multitude of various interpretations of "scripture."

Interpreting and implementing "scripture" is not the government's job.

Straights and gays should have the same civil union contracts - and benefits of said contracts - recognized by the government - period.

If any couple - straight or gay - wants to embellish the union by spending a gob of money on a ceremony and reception - have at it. Go to a church which will conduct the ceremony, and voila - you can call yourself "married" at the conclusion of the ceremony - and then have a big party.

It's the equal rights that really matter. Right now we don't have equality and if we continue to let some churches dictate to all us who can and cannot be "married" - we never will.

Churches clearly cannot constitutionally dictate terms of civil contracts for all of the rest of us who may, or may not be churchgoers, so that is why I support the government recognizing civil unions only, for both straights and gays.

[rateyes]

42. I personally think the state ought to get out

of the marriage business altogether...straight or gay.

[FlaGranny]

56. ?? You mean that people should

only get married in a religious ceremony? Marriage is a contract that can be performed by a clergyman or a representative of the state. The state (government) should get involved, to make sure that everyone who wants to marry gets to do so with all the rights of everyone else. Certainly, if the government stays out of it, each state will continue to be able to discriminate.

[rateyes]

65. No, I don't mean that.

I don't think there should be special rights afforded to married people by the state. If a couple wants a church to marry them---fine. If a couple wants a baseball umpire to perform the ceremony---fine. If a couple wants to look at each other and say, "We're married"----fine.

Marriage and divorce are big business for the state, and not a small number of lawyers. And, to what purpose?

[Stephanie]

43. He's been saying this for some time.

I first heard him discuss it in the MTV town mtg. He said he would enact legislation to expand all 1200 federal rights to same sex civil unions. I understand as you do that it's not ideal, but it is a big step.

[Lisa0825]

51. If I were ever to "get married" again, I would get a civil union instead.

Churches can marry, but the legal side of the contract should be a civil union for ALL of us. Then it will be up to the churches to adopt their own rules, and most of us are already very familiar with which denominations are open to gay marriage. I feel that if we separated the marriage from the civil union, it would sink a huge part of the argument, since it takes the religion out of it.

[housewolf]

55. You know what...

I hadn't given this idea any thought before, but I find that I agree with you on the concept. In what we call "marriage" today there are actually 3 things going on...

One is the legal stuff re: property rights and all that.

Two is the responsibilities/rights of parenthood that are part of most _but not all_ unions.

And three is the realm of the sacred for those who choose to consecrate their union to their "God" (or insert whatever word you want there. Many want to do that, but as with #2, not all.

I agree with you that there should be a separating out of the legal from the sacred. That would really resolve a lot of the problem re: gay marriage.

Thanks for giving me something new to think about!

[Lisa0825]

60. Thank you!

I think the best chance of being treated equally is taking the fundies out of the equation, and that is what making the religious part separate from the legal part could do. Then any couple can have the legal protections and make their own personal choice about the religious aspect.

I never thought about it until a gay friend and I sort of reached the same conclusion during conversation, and it seemed so easy to think of it that way. Then I read about some celeb (I forget who) who said she'd get a civil union to honor her GLBT brothers and sisters. Ever since then, I have felt it's the right answer for me too.

[readmoreoften]

61. No, the state marries you. Your church service is nothing but a party.

My parents were not married in a church. They were married by the mayor. They are not civilly unionized. They're married. Churches perform a marriage ceremony Churches have absolutely nothing to do with legal marriage. It is a religious ritual that many cherish, but it has nothing to do with the state. The Catholic church is not required to perform services for Jews or Protestants. A Rabbi is not required by law to marry Wiccans. Any priest can say to any couple: I don't believe you're ready to be married, or I don't believe you truly follow your faith traditions. A religion could simply say: our religion does not recognize a marriage between two men or women. Just like The Simons Corp can kick people out of their malls for wearing antiwar t-shirts. Private property. End of story. That's why there is separation of church and state. The church can discriminate: the state cannot.

[Lisa0825]

66. It's semantics.

In other languages in some cultures, there are sometimes two different words and separate ceremonies for the civil part of the marriage and the religious part. That is what I WISH we had here so everyone could have a legal union without the "marriage" word that gets wrapped up in religious meanings. Then if one chose to have the religious part of the union one could, but it would be more distinctly separate.

[readmoreoften]

73. It's not semantics. It's a fact. Nothing happens in the church. It's a ceremonial attachment.

Marriage pre-dates religion. It is not a religious word and we shouldn't let religions own the word. There is no need to make up new words. No one will ever want to be 'civilly unionized'. It's an absurd phrase. It also will segregate not just gay people from straight people, but religious people from non-believers. There is no reason for every state, the federal government, and all companies should rewrite law as well as public and private policies so religious people get to own a legal concept. So my parents, who've been married for 40 years don't get the right to say they're married anymore? They should tell their insurance that they're civilly unionized and 'partners' and also explain that such a partnership is equivalent to marriage?

Why bend over backwards for religious separatists? If it's merely a 'semantic' issue, then they should have no problem admitting that a couple's union before the eyes of the Lord is a religious act, but in order for their union to be recognized by the state as a marriage--they need a marriage certificate.

Keep it simple.

[readmoreoften]

59. This is good. This makes me more comfortable with voting for him should he be the nominee.

Good step on his part.

[dkf]

62. And that's 1200 obligations that you've tied yourself into if you get married.

Now THAT is the scary thing.

lol.

[appleannie1]

64. I heard that also. I knew there were a lot but that figure stunned me.

I have a friend that is gay and has a very bad heart. He cannot get on a heart transplant list because "he leads a high risk lifestyle". He has been with the same partner for years. Yet they can get away with it so I also knew there were many regulations that most people do not know about.

[Texas Hill Country]

68. and where was Obama when the Human Rights Council invited him to speak?

oooooohhhh, that's right, he didnt go. funny thing is that Hillary was the first one to accept tho... hmmmmm...


and when did he ever participate in a gay pride parade?


oh, yeah, he hasnt. funny thing is that Hillary has marched in several...


and how many speeches has he given on gay rights? none you say? hmmm... odd that hillary has given plenty

[Political Heretic]

70. He's right... or close to it. There are over a thousand.

[Seabiscuit]

71. Yes he knows that there are 1200 laws and regulations ... so what is he going to do about it?

Did Barack indicate what he would do as a president about those laws/regulations that create inequality?