[SKIP]
Ultimately, the judge concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. … Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”]
[Updated at 2:28 p.m.: Both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa praised the judge's decision. "Because a judge had the courage to stand up for the constitution of the United States, prop 8 has been overturned!" the mayor wrote on Twitter.
READ MORE HERE
Rachel Maddow explains how the flimsy and astonishingly crackpot testimony supporting Prop 8 "disgusted" Judge Walker:
59 comments:
Proposition 8 Unconstitutional? You mean to tell me that Leviticus, was just the original fundamental Republican (emphasis on mental) who had not made it out of the closet (kinda like Ted Haggard)? Lets face it was not in the Ten Commandments or even addressed by Jesus the son of God, so are we surprised with this ruling, its about time.
Amen! We will see same sex marriage adopted by every state in the future.
Those who continue to discriminate based on religion will not endure.
This is a simple civil rights case. Period.
"Those who continue to discriminate based on religion will not endure."
Congratulations on your latest victory to advance the liberal ideology.
but will have to say that i am surprised. i never realized that this was a 1st amendment issue. it was always my understanding that this was a 10th amendment issue.
It's a 14th, not 10th, amendment issue.
What Leviticus says in regards to homosexuality (if anything) is debatable. Only religious Right homophobes are POSITIVE it is an "abomination".
Griper,
I do not see equal protection as liberal ideology.
Allowing same sex marriage under our Constitution is no more liberal ideology than was allowing interracial marriage.
Granting equal rights to all our citizens regardless of race, creed, or sexual orientation is not liberal ideology, it is wholly and rightly American.
It is my opinion that those who are adamantly against this genuinely American ideal are prejudiced by their religion. Our Constitution does not allow discrimination based on religious prejudices.
This is another victory for justice.
This is a blog post from the site The Unreligious Right on the Prop 8 ruling:
Proposition 8 Struck Down
Many opponents of gay marriage are already yelling "judicial activism," and claiming that the judge made up a new right to gay marriage. But if you look at the reasoning used to strike down California's law, that's not what he did.
Walker, in his decision, writes that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gays and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."
This is the key element in the decision. There is no rational basis for discriminating against gays/lesbians who want to marry. The judge amplifies that argument with findings of fact, some of which are listed in the linked article.
Although I am in favor of gay marriage, I also oppose judges creating new constitutional rights by fiat. But that's not what this judge did. Instead, he did exactly what judges are supposed to do. He reviewed a law, and found it to be unconstitutional discrimination. And in my opinion, he is correct. The prohibition of gay marriage is based on long-standing dislike of homosexuality and prejudice against gays -- often founded on religious teachings. If the state is going to be involved in marriages, there's no rational basis for prohibiting two people of the same sex to enter into what is a legal, contractual relationship. In my view, laws specifically banning gay marriage are clearly discriminatory and unequal treatment under the law.
For those complaining that the will of the majority is being ignored, that's why the U.S. was set up as a democratically-representative constitutional republic, with a balance of power between three branches, rather than a pure representative democracy. Sometimes minorities, even small minorities such as homosexuals, need protection against having their rights trampled by the will of the majority.
On the other side, I have long thought that gay marriage rights should come through legislation rather than the court system. Despite the valid reasoning of this judge, many will not accept it, particularly since it goes against such an entrenched tradition, as well as many religious beliefs. I would prefer that homosexuals take a longer view, attempt to change minds, and build a majority consensus in favor of gay marriage rights. I understand why they don't want to wait, but at the same time I think the judicial path stirs up animosity toward gays. It will be interesting to see what happens when this case hits the Supreme Court.
A great victory for progressives who have always moved this country forward on civil rights issues.
If it were up to "majority rule" alone, slavery would never have been outlawed in the south in this country, and there would be no interracial marriages.
If the religious right really and truly want to protect marriage, they should spend their money in trying to outlaw divorce--that's what destroys marriages, not more marriages. But the religious right will never let that happen. The Bible Belt has the highest divorce rate in the country.
This was a correct decision.
Good for America.
I recommend that everyone read the ruling - it's fascinating! Of course the people who should read it- the religious bigots - are the ones who won't all the while claiming they know exactly what the judge was thinking when he made his ruling.
Even a conservative judge cannot deny the philosophy of equal rights, or the reality of equal rights as written in our laws.
These screaming meme's who cannot accept it, cannot accept the Constitution.
In fact, I hear they want to override the 14th amendment.
Hate always fogs the decision process.
Awesome!! I could never quite get my arms around why California, of all states, would deny the civil liberties of those who simply want to be like everyone else.
California - the land of the progressives. Just did not make sense to me. Maybe just all the Catholic and Mormon influence I supose.
he grins as he ignores dervish's comment since its only purpose is to demean.
Shaw,
I was being a bit impish with my declaring of the amendments being used based upon how you worded it as i quoted. i'll admit i should have added a little smiley face after that.
religious discrimination as defined in law is based upon the religious views of the person suffering from discrimination not on the religious views of the one doing the discrimination. there is a difference.
i would say tho, that if you do not want people to accuse your stance as advancing liberal ideology then respect the opponents enough not to accuse them of attempting to impose their religious beliefs as the basis of their stance.
as for the use of biblical scripture as a means to persuade the opposition i have seen you and other liberals use it also. this you cannot deny. and you have used it in a way that can only be declared as debatable also.
so if it be fair for you to use it then it is also a valid means for your opponents to use it.
as for your comparing it to racial discrimination in regards to marriage, that is a questionable comparison thus deserves debate not demonizing.
I read every word of his ruling and it was AWESOME!
Griper, READ THE RULING. Seriously. Read it.
Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. I have no want to deny heteros that want to get married that right simply because they prefer a different intercourse position than I do. Be it for religious, pleasure or comfort reasons.
Do you have a problem with what two consenting heteros do Griper?
Griper: "...if you do not want people to accuse your stance as advancing liberal ideology then respect the opponents enough not to accuse them of attempting to impose their religious beliefs as the basis of their stance."
Then what would be the basis of the opposition's not wanting to extend marriage status to a Adam and Steve or Evangeline and Eve?
If the resistance isn't coming from a religious belief, then where does it come from?
In the bad old days, opponents of same sex marriage maintained that the institution of marriage is chiefly for procreation. That argument no longer stands since gay and lesbian couples have been adopting children for years, and, as in the case of Mary Cheney, they can actually bear children and raise them with their partners.
[Heteros women whose husbands have poor sperm count or other medical issues also are artificially impregnated with a donor's sperm.]
So gay and lesbians can procreate and raise families, and they deal with the same issues as heteros do, but not enough studies have been conducted to determine if the children being raised in g&l families are any different from those raised in hetero families.
The only impediment to accepting our gay brothers and sisters as fully equal citizens is the religious one, I believe.
There are extremely conservative religions--Islam comes to mind--Evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics and others in the world of religious conventions that will not accept gay marriage because they believe their god inveighs against it. They believe it is sinful and should be punished.
That's a religious bias against homosexuals and same-sex marriage.
As for quoting religious scripture, I do so to push back at those who profess to be religious but then ignore their own doctrines.
I do not use scripture to make MY point, but rather to point out what a religious person is supposed to follow.
Griper - “religious discrimination as defined in law is based upon the religious views of the person suffering from discrimination not on the religious views of the one doing the discrimination. there is a difference … as for the use of biblical scripture as a means to persuade the opposition i have seen you and other liberals use it also … if you do not want people to accuse your stance as advancing liberal ideology then respect the opponents …”
Griper,
Hate speech of the KKK, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis may be protected speech pursuant to the First Amendment, but hate speech is hate speech is hate speech by any measure. There is a false equivalence between the words ‘religion’ and ‘hate speech,’ a distinction you seem to NOT understand.
Furthermore, you seem to regard the Proposition 8 decision as a partisan issue. It is not. The judge in the case is an appointee of former President Reagan and former President GHW Bush. The attorneys arguing the case on behalf of the LGBT Community are a bi-partisan team comprised of David Boies, a Demcrat, and Ted Olsen, a Republican. This is a civil rights issue, not a partisan one.
Furthermore, I resent your use of the phrase “liberal ideology” in very discussion thread as if you are making a value judgment as to our values, morals, and citizenship; as if use of the term were a form of derision and scorn. If this is your intent, go back to your Fox News, stay there, and don’t bother us.
Finally, I resent your tedious, tendentious, and tiresome pretzel logic. Read Shaw’s comment policy, which clearly states:
“I welcome civil discourse from people of all persuasions but express no obligation to allow this blog to be trolled. Any comment that fails to rise above ranting, taunting, profanity, and name-calling will be deleted without further comment at my discretion. ”
Now lets focus on the word, ‘taunting.’ If your purpose is to come here and taunt and annoy people, congratulations, you have succeeded. It you walk like a troll, quack like a troll, and act like a troll, you will be treated like a troll.
Shaw,
very good questions and ones deserving answers to which i'll attempt to do as briefly as possible given the format of our discussion.
"Then what would be the basis of the opposition's not wanting to extend marriage status to a Adam and Steve or Evangeline and Eve?"
on Constitutional grounds based upon the fact that the interpretation of it is not a common interpretation, meaning that not everyone interprets in the same manner as you do or even as i do.
procreation and adoption are two different concepts and not comparable.
intercourse or as some would say the act of procreation is an act that primarily is to satisfy the needs of the two participants of the act. the very fact that procreation does not occur each and every time intercourse occurs is evidence to that fact. but that does not deny the purpose of it.
adoption on the other hand has the primary purpose of providing that child with the needs he has, a good home and all of things that can be associated with the concept of a good home.
and you are forgetting one thing, even those that advocate that marriage is for the purpose of procreation will recognize the fact that some couples cannot procreate. they are a big proponent of the concept of adoption.
and for those who use their religious beliefs as the basis will also tell you that while marriage is for the purpose of procreation whether or not they can and will procreate is determined by the Will of God.
so, your argument, in regards to the procreation concept of marriage, is fallacious but, admittedly, very persuasive.
it is not the achievement of parenthood but the opportunity of parenthood that is the real argument of the procreation idea of marriage.
if it was based upon achievement as you argue then only those persons that could beget children would be allowed to marry. and that would require some type of test be taken. this has never been a requirement nor a requirement ever advocated by procreationists as far as i know.
and while there is no test for the purpose of achievement of procreation there is a blood test taken by the participants and this test deals directly with the idea of the effects of procreation when the law was enacted.
procreation is also the basis for the laws in regards to whom a person may be married to thus banning brothers and sisters or parent and child from marrying.
now, Shaw, i know that my answer probably will not convince you but i have stated that i am not out to convince anyone to my way of thinking. i do hope you'll give some thought to it
Shaw,
one more thing. since procreation is impossible in a homosexual marriage then the laws in regards to marriage does no apply to them and a brother would have the right to marry his brother or a father could marry his son.
maybe you agree with that concept or you don't but it should be considered as the result of this ruling.
Those Prop 8 proponents did have a pretty weak case.
Griper said: "it was always my understanding that this was a 10th amendment issue."
OK, Let's look at the 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".
So, who will you side with, Griper? Strong intrusive state government, or the people who want to marry?
----------------------
W-Dervish said: "What Leviticus says in regards to homosexuality (if anything) is debatable. Only religious Right homophobes are POSITIVE it is an "abomination".
Them, and Bill Clinton (who signed the DOMA) and Barack Obama, who campaigned on opposition to gay marriage, and has at times been to the right of Dick Cheney on the issue.
---------------
Octo said: "Furthermore, you seem to regard the Proposition 8 decision as a partisan issue. It is not. The judge in the case is an appointee of former President Reagan and former President GHW Bush."
Good points, And Prop 8 might not have passed if not for very strong support among California's liberal and Democrat-leaning African-American voters.
Walker was originally nominated by reagan but never confirmed.
He was renominated by Bush the Elder and confirmed in 1989.
Dmarks,
So, who will you side with, Griper? Strong intrusive state government, or the people who want to marry?
i side with the one who has the authority and power to govern the status of marriage per the Constitution of that State.
and if we declare that it is the right of the individual then the State has no right to issue a decree of divorce.
dmarks... Them, and Bill Clinton (who signed the DOMA) and Barack Obama, who campaigned on opposition to gay marriage.
The "no marriage for gays" position was and is held by Clinton and Obama for political reasons. They're both wrong, but that does not make them homophobes, or mean they think homosexuality is an "abomination". To suggest otherwise is a flat-out lie.
You're wrong about Cheney too, who previously stated "that same-sex marriage should be left to the states to decide", although that was just his "own preference" -- but those "comments did not constitute a change of opinion or policy" of the bush administration (his campaign spokesperson clarified).
We don't know what Barack Obama's personal view on the matter is, only his political one. And he certainly can not state a personal view that is at odds with his political one (even if it is) -- because he's at the top of the ticket, unlike Cheney (who wasn't).
If it wasn't for Cheney 's gay daughter I'm positive he would have been in complete agreement with bush in his support of a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman.
Griper, I have no idea why the hell you're grinning. Only the first sentence of my comment was directed at you, the rest was a response to what Linda wrote. The fact that you feel demeaned -- I'm guessing that means YOU are one of the Right wingers who are positive homosexuality is an abomination?
GRIPER WROTE: "...one more thing. since procreation is impossible in a homosexual marriage..."
You're wrong here. Mary Cheney has had two children with her own ova. I don't know whose sperm she used. But you have to have known that hetero women procreate the same way. If their husbands' sperm cannot procreate, then they use sperm banks. If their ova cannot procreate, they use other ova. So your argument against gay marriage for procreation does not work.
GRIPER WROTE: "...then the laws in regards to marriage does no apply to them and a brother would have the right to marry his brother or a father could marry his son."
Um, NO. That is incest. And there are laws against that.
Why you used that as an example is mystifying to me. It does not stand.
Incest is illegal. Your argument is false.
FROM WIKIPEDA: "Incest is illegal in many jurisdictions. The exact legal definition of "incest," including the nature of the relationship between persons, and the types sexual activity, varies by country, and by even individual states or provinces within a country. These laws can also extend to marriage between subject individuals.
In some places, incest is illegal, regardless of the ages of the two partners. In other places, incestuous relationships between two consenting adults (with the age varying by location) are permitted.
A jurisdiction's definition of an incestuous relationship will also limit who a person is permitted to marry. Some jurisdictions forbid first-cousins to marry, while others limit the prohibition to brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts and uncles.'
Shaw,
procreationists do not deny that individuals has the ability to create. that would be foolish of them as you imply and i'd stand at your side in agreement with you.
they say that the purpose of marriage is for procreation by the couple married, the husband's sperm and the wife's ova.
this would be one of the reason that they advocate for abstinence rather than safe sex for kids.
so, my explanation of their stance stands.
Shaw,
i have already admitted that marriage between family members are illegal.
but you fail to determine the purpose of the laws.
the reason is that it is declared as the cause of some mental disorders in the offspring of such relationships.
that is the justification for the laws of incest.
Griper,
I don't know how the conversation went from same-sex marriage to incest. One does not follow the other. I understand why incest is illegal. I don't understand why the subject was brought up in this thread.
To recap: Same sex marriages produce children in the same way that children are produced in hetero couples who have fertility issues, i.e., male low sperm count, or male sterility, and female fertility problems.] So that removes the issue as an impediment for people who believe marriage is for procreation.
As to the claim made by some that marriage is only between a man and a woman, I believe that is merely traditional. Gay couples have been living together in common law marriages forever. And there have been marriages between a man and several women [even in the Bible], and in some cultures around the world that arrangement is common.
Other than a religious prohibition--what would make same-sex marriage unConstitutional?
I maintain that nobody has the right to debate this until they've read the ruling. The whole ruling. Griper, are you scared?
I'm thrilled by the decision and tired of all the mythology from the right and their attempts to always veer from the subject at hand. It's a waste of breath, time and energy trying to have an intelligent conversation with all but the rare bird who really knows the law and the constitution (the forest) and who doesn't just mouth bits and pieces (the trees) to prop up weak nonsensical arguments (houses of cards).
Anon - "... read the ruling. The whole ruling. Griper, are you scared?"
Yes, READ THE RULING! For some reason, Griper has assigned himself the role of OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE PEST, who continues to badger Shaw without forethought.
Griper, you have had your say, now go away.
to borrow from shaw's quoting:
"GRIPER WROTE: "...one more thing. since procreation is impossible in a homosexual marriage..."
I know heterosexual couples who never procreate, and don't want to. So the "procreational" argument because less and less relevant.
w dervish said:
"The "no marriage for gays" position was and is held by Clinton and Obama for political reasons. They're both wrong, but that does not make them homophobes, or mean they think homosexuality is an "abomination". To suggest otherwise is a flat-out lie."
So they enacted or pushed for homophobic policies for political reasons. That's an awfully weak defense. So weak to be none at all.
Actually, to excuse them from homophobia is a flat-out lie. And it is certainly not a flat-out lie to say that they think homosexuality is an "abomination".... because they sure act like it. And isn't the real evidence of how someone thinks in how they act?
"We don't know what Barack Obama's personal view on the matter is"
We sure have good evidence of his views from his policies.
"If it wasn't for Cheney 's gay daughter I'm positive he would have been in complete agreement..."
And pure imagination comes into play. You defend those who exhibit homophobia (ignoring real evidence) through knee-jerk reaction and "political vs personal views" somersaults. And when the name of a third person who is less homophobic than Obama and Clinton comes up, you start making up stuff from thin air (making up stuff without evidence).
'... you start making up stuff from thin air (making up stuff without evidence).'
Always sound advice.
President Obama is not a homophobe.
Nor is he a Marxist.
Nor Maoist.
Nor Kenyan.
Nor Revolutionary.
Nor Socialist.
Shaw,
i have already responded to your arguments stated in you last response to me.
what makes it unconstitutional is the fact that rights belongs to individuals not groups per the Supreme Court. and each and every person has the right to marry now as long as they abide by the laws governing marriage in this nation. no individual is denied that right now.
anonymous,
what makes you think i haven't read the ruling already?
Arthur: The only of those that might stick is the homophobe one, since Pres. Obama campaigned on opposition to gay marriage.
It's interesting that the defenses of Obama, like W-Dervish's, rely on the idea that Obama is a smarmy liar who promises things he does not believe. And this attack comes from Obama supporters.
So, Arthur, are you one of those who excuses Obama's homophobic campaign by claiming he was lying? Or do you accept that he was stating his views honestly.
From the Lesbian Life section at about.com
"Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage"
Liar or homophobe. You choose.
Dmarks - "Liar or homophobe. You choose"
Third choice: Politician. There is hardly a politician in America today who hasn't demurred, waffled, or equivocated on one issue or another. Especially on hot button issues. Attitudes change, opinions change, and politicians go with the tide. Same holds true with the American people. Change starts slowly in fits and starts. When public opinion starts to shift, does that mean the American people are liars or homophobes. I think not. An argument is about to be won, and what matters now is where people stand today, not yesterday.
Dmarks - A case in point: Fox News Online Poll Shows 71% View Anti-Gay Marriage Prop 8 as Unconstitutional. Who would have imagined even as recently as last week that a majority of Fox News would come this far! See! Change happens.
Sorry dmarks. If only things were so simple.
One thing I've learned over the years is that things are rarely so cut and dried. For many its comforting to believe every issue can be reduced to yes/no, either/or, liar/homophobe but the world is a far richer and more nuanced place.
Arthur said: "Sorry dmarks. If only things were so simple."
This one is.
Was he honest when he said he opposed gay marriage?
Is it possible to oppose gay marriage and not be some sort of anti-gay bigot?
"...its comforting to believe every issue..."
Actually, we weren't talking about every issue. We were talking about this one. And you totally fumbled it. Is it perhaps because the President fits one or both?
----------------------
Octo: Considering Fox's conservative tilt, I wonder if the percentage is higher?
I missed this other one
Octo said: "Dmarks - "Liar or homophobe. You choose"
"Third choice: Politician."
Fits in with liar. A person who says anything in order to get power.
"There is hardly a politician in America today who hasn't demurred, waffled, or equivocated on one issue or another."
So Obama's not that bad as long as we hold him to this real low standard.
dmarks,
You're forgetting that Mr. Obama supported civil unions for gays.
I believe everyone who wants to marry should have a civil union--that is--the union is sanctioned by the state. If the couple wants a religious ceremony then that could follow. But the civil union is what makes the couple's contract legal.
Mr. Obama supported that.
From the WhiteHouse.gov/civil rights page:
"President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.
dmarks, how on earth can you describe that as "homophobic?"
Dmarks - So Obama's not that bad as long as we hold him to this real low standard."
Frankly this hyper partisan Punch-N-Judy Show is wearing thin.
TAKE THAT!
POW!
SMACKDOWN!
BACK AT YOU!
It doesn't interest me anymore.
Heres how I see it this thread spinning down the drain.
There are only two concevable solutions in the entire universe (actually only two I can imagine).
And if you don't agree with one of my two positions you've fumbled the issue.
Did I leave anything out?
Or is it when I carry my hammer everything becomes a nail?
Brutta farsa! Freddura! Grossolano! Battacchio!
Shaw said: "You're forgetting that Mr. Obama supported civil unions for gays."
I am well aware of this. There are also Republicans who support this, while opposing gay marriage.
In fact, Obama's position is like that of the outrageous Proposition 8: no gay marriage, yes civil unions. How is Prop 8 outrageous, and Obama's view not?
--------------
Arthur said:
I see it this thread spinning down the drain."
Yeah. You are doing nothing but spinning, instead of answering easy questions. You asked if you left anything out. Yes, you did. You left everything out, especially honesty. So, going to answer? Even a third answer? You could have given one all along, instead of making up brand new things and diverting the subject.
"Or is it when I carry my hammer everything becomes a nail?"
Perfect example of "anything but the truth, anything but the question. Now, care to put down your hammer get back to the subject and try some honesty?
-------------
Octo: Punch and Judy? Nice change of subject from the fact, which you pointed out, of Obama lying about his views for political expediency.
I doubt if it were a Republican lying about their views like this, that you'd give him or her such broad latitude. Homophobia? It's alright as long as there is a D after the name.
Octopus,
The fact that you would use an admittedly fallacious poll as evidence to verify your stance on the issue is all that is needed to show the fallacy of your argument.
the fact that by your own admission you will use such a low standard to judge the views of a man as long as he agrees with you is indicative of the standards you hold for your own thoughts.
"I wunner wud you please be gud a nuff and tel me what putcha putcha means?
...Punch says 'That's what putcha means. If you putcha close Iwl whack whack whack..."
Suggested reading:
Russell Hoban, 'Riddley Walker'
Have a look at Google books. My favorite novel ever. An excellent choice as we endure this pre-apocalyptic era.
Arthurstone, see you back the Zone, my friend. No point baby sitting this Romper Room shit.
dmarks, I think it is clear to virtually everyone else who has posted that it is you who is doing somersaults to paint President Obama as homophobic.
President Obama supports civil unions and, as president, he has pushed for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and extended health care rights to gay partners.
That doesn't mean he isn't wrong about gay marriage, but supporting it would cost him votes (sadly). If he can't win the presidency then he can't do a damn thing to forward the cause. President Obama isn't a liar or a homophobe, he's a pragmatist. (what Arthurstone said about politicians is accurate, but the correct term to use in this instance is "pragmatist".)
He was completely honest when he said he opposed gay marriage. He never said it was his "personal preference" to do so.
"Pure imagination" has absolutely NOTHING to do with the conclusions I reached regarding Cheney's views on gay marriage. I included the relevant portions from the linked to article which show that he would have been against gay marriage (when he was VP) if not for his daughter.
He said it was only his own personal preference, and that his "comments did not constitute a change of opinion or policy" -- which meant that officially he did not even support civil unions and was still on board for the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Of course Cheney probably offered this weak (so weak as to be none at all) support of gay marriage for political reasons as well -- and since leaving office he has said that this issue should be "decided by the states rather than the federal government" (so "no" to the Constitutional amendment) -- I'll give him that. However, I'm going to agree with Shepard Smith who called Cheney's gay marriage stance a "cop out".
Prop 8 and similar laws denying marriage equality violate the Constitution. Whether or not to violate the Constitution can't be decided on a state-by-state basis!
First you said:
"is you who is doing somersaults to paint President Obama as homophobic."
And then you said:
"He was completely honest when he said he opposed gay marriage."
No need for me to do somersaults, when you backflipped right into that. You did the painting.
Don't bother dervish.
You're attempting the impossible.
One last tool analogy.
I often look at these little chats here and elsewhere on the blogosphere as a little WD40 for a squeaky hinge.
But if the lock is rusted shut...
dmarks, I guess you missed it when I said earlier that President Obama was practicing pragmatism. His position of opposition to gay marriage is one of pragmatism, it has NOTHING to do with being homophobic (which he is not).
Arthurstone, you are probably right -- dmarks isn't going to acknowledge the difference -- because then he couldn't use this issue to attack Obama.
Cheney, for political reasons, said it was his "personal preference" that gay marriage was OK, BUT officially he supported the president's push for a Constitutional amendment banning it -- and dmarks defends him.
Obama, for political reasons, says "civil unions YES" but "marriage NO" -- and dmarks calls him a liar and a homophobe.
I say dmarks is a hypocrite.
"His position of opposition to gay marriage is one of pragmatism, it has NOTHING to do with being homophobic (which he is not)."
Ah. Just like all of those "No Jews Allowed" signs, drinking fountains for the "colored", men's only social/business clubs, and the like. It wasn't any sort of bigotry. It was pragmatism. I understand now.
"Obama, for political reasons, says "civil unions YES" but "marriage NO" -- and dmarks calls him a liar and a homophobe."
I merely pointed out the fact that he was one or the other. Either he was honestly expressing a homophobic view, or he was lying and saying it for political reasons.
But now I get it. Expressions of bigoted views are OK as long as the view is "pragmatic"....
As far as "attacking Obama" goes, I will attack him and the conservatives also for the anti-gay marriage stance.
I will also criticize those who give Obama a free pass for some sort of "pragmatic homophobia" just because he has a D after his name.
It's one example of Obama getting defended by the left when he is not in line with a typical left-wing cause.
Another is when Obama has sided with business interests (and the Chicago machine) on the Asian Carp issue, and is blocking efforts to prevent this noxious intrusive specials from getting into the Great Lakes.
I see you conveniently ignored the point I made about Cheney having a "personal preference" but still supporting GWB's constitutional amendment...
I'm defending Obama because everything else he has done to forward the acquisition of equal rights for homosexuals (the deeds Shaw pointed out earlier) -- PROVES he is not a homophobe. I don't defend politicians simply because they have a "D" after their name.
President Obama has done significantly more on this issue than any previous president. There is no such thing as "pragmatic homophobia", dumbass. Either you're a hypocritical dumbass or a hypocritical partisan liar AND a dumbass. I think name calling is appropriate at this point because your accusations are so blatantly false as to be ridiculous.
And because I find your equating pragmatism to bigotry HIGHLY insulting. To our president and to me personally -- because you are suggesting that I'm excusing homophobia by defending him on this.
BTW, there are numerous other issues I won't defend Obama on -- the Afghanistan escalation, the increased use of predator drones (especially in Pakistan), continuing military tribunals at Gitmo, the carp thing you mentioned (which I admit I am unfamiliar with, although it sounds like something I wouldn't support him on). (and many more.)
I do, however, take exception to your use of the term "Chicago Machine" -- it is nothing more than Right-wing BS.
Post a Comment