Support NeoGAF

[Frank the Great]

Yeah I want him to shut his fucking mouth the day after California instead of slapping gay and lesbian people across the face.

I guess we should be good, docile faggots and dykes and be thankful when the force of hope and change deigns to consider us even remotely deserving of equal rights.

Seriously dude, I agree with you. There is a huge difference between allowing gay marriage and civil unions (not merely a symbolic difference) and gays should definitely be allowed.

However, you're definitely overreacting. This is P O L I T I C S. Who cares what these politicians believe or say? It would be political suicide for a candidate to come out guns a'blazing in favor of gay marriage.

Further, nothing ever gets changed because of one man. You guys in general need to stop putting faith in politicians. The societal movement is what counts, and the gay rights movement has recently seen some smashing successes and it will continue to do so in the future. It is a process that will take time, one guy isn't going to change anything.

 

[Incognito]

Obama upset Jesse Jackson?

That should earn him a few points from the media punditocracy.

 

[Gaborn]

Gaborn: I understand your point, but there is still a threat of an amendment under McCain, which would have to be more damning to your cause than civil unions (which are not ideal but still moving in the right direction. Sort of). I would think an amendment is the end of the line for a much longer period of time.

The thing is though, other than the Bully Pulpit the President isn't involved in the Amendment process at all as a matter of law, I don't see a Democratic congress passing it if a narrowly Republican congress wasn't willing to do so.

 

[TDG]

I guess we should be good, docile faggots and dykes and be thankful when the force of hope and change deigns to consider us even remotely deserving of equal rights.

He wants to give gays equal rights... just under a different name. You're misrepresenting things, and making a complete fool out of yourself.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

McCain will be another Bush.

Obama will be the liberal version of Bush.

We're fucked.

 

[soul creator]

If Obama opposes gay marriage why should we believe that he's opposed to putting his belief into policy? If gay marriage is wrong in his view then why do you believe he's opposing the California amendment?

Being a nonbeliever, I "oppose" Christianity, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I would try to outlaw churches if I was president. *shrug* It's the whole "I disagree, but defend your right to have it" mindset

 

[Gaborn]

He wants to give gays equal rights... just under a different name. You're misrepresenting things, and making a complete fool out of yourself.

So again, would you support or oppose an effort to rename interracial marriages "civil unions?"

 

[Particle Physicist]

It was posted in response to someone's quote that Obama doesn't oppose same-sex marriage.

Separate isn't equal. And I want religion out of politics; it's quite easy to hold it against him.

i want religion out of politics also. but he isnt bringing religion into this. he isnt saying that he will ban "marriage" between same sex couples.

you have to realize that same sex "marriage" will never happen in this country.. not with the way that christians have taken control. there are several steps that have to happen for equal rights. 1) allowing civil unions for same sex couples. 2) abolishing the word "marriage" for all couples, and using unions instead.

the term marriage is prefaced by all kinds of religious connotations. separation of church and state. civil unions for everyone.. and let churches/temples/mosques/etc. take care of marriages.

 

[Mercury Fred]

No, you're dirtying it up with stupid nonsensical and factually inaccurate biases on a subject that was beaten to the ground ridiculously over and over again when there are some other important issues to talk about.

I've posted neither nonsense nor factual inaccuracy. I'm a lifelong Democratic voter who is outraged by FISA, outraged by playing ball with an outgoing criminal administration and outraged by hypocrisy on gay marriage.

 

[Dartastic]

No offense, but the whole "civil union" issue is paltry compared to the FISA fiasco. The 4th Amendment is dead, long live the 4th Amendment.

 

[Gaborn]

McCain will be another Bush.

Obama will be the liberal version of Bush.

We're fucked.

But... I thought Bush was the liberal version of Bush, at least in terms of spending.

 

[reilo]

I've posted neither nonsense nor factual inaccuracy. I'm a lifelong Democratic voter who is outraged by FISA, outraged by playing ball with an outgoing criminal administration and outraged by hypocrisy on gay marriage.

You started off the day by proclaiming that we all went easy and even supported on Obama for the FISA issue eventhough that was both false and untrue.

Then you gave even more stupid statements by claiming Obama is a fraud and to "fuck Obama." As far as I'm concerned, you are an irrational human being.

 

[worldrunover]

The thing is though, other than the Bully Pulpit the President isn't involved in the Amendment process at all as a matter of law, I don't see a Democratic congress passing it if a narrowly Republican congress wasn't willing to do so.

Ok, well I understand where you're coming from, it does make sense. Assuming Obama would try to institute civil unions (which I don't see as a given right now, it's still not very politically viable).

 

[Gaborn]

the term marriage is prefaced by all kinds of religious connotations. separation of church and state. civil unions for everyone.. and let churches/temples/mosques/etc. take care of marriages.

And I will agree with you the first time a state votes to take away heterosexuals title of marriage and gives them all civil unions.

Worldrunover - even if Obama doesn't implement civil unions, his ADVOCACY for them will change the narrative of the debate in key states like New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Washington state, Oregon, where there is at least a POSSIBILITY of the legislature down the road enacting gay marriage. The bully pulpit isn't everything, but framing a discussion of marriage equality in terms of assuming civil unions ARE equality may prompt more states to adopt civil unions as a END to marriage equality, not as a BEGINNING on that path.

 

[speculawyer]

He's not dodging. He said the day after California granted marriage equality that marriage was between a man and a woman. That's not dodging.

But I do agree with the question "Why take a position if you don't have to?" Why the fuck did Obama open his mouth the next day to reiterate this right-wing talking point?

You do know that the also said he opposed the amendment banning gay marriage, right?

A win is a win. And getting Obama into office will get more gay wins than McCain.

But as I said earlier . . . bitch and scream as loud as possible . . . the more left screaming about Obama, the better. (As long as you still vote for him.)

 

[Hitokage]

Somebody needs a hug.

 

[ToyMachine228]

Separate isn't equal.

I agree. But Obama is going to give the gay community much more support than McCain will. Check out his flyer under the Media section, then Downloads, then Issue Flyers. There is a LGBT flyer in there. While you are right when you say separate isn't equal, granting gay couples equal rights through "civil unions" instead of marriage is quite a big step if it were to go through on the federal level.

 

[Frank the Great]

McCain's potential Supreme Court nominees could put the gay marriage movement on hold for another 20 years.

Suck it up and vote for Obama.

 

[Gaborn]

McCain's potential Supreme Court nominees could put the gay marriage movement on hold for another 20 years.

Suck it up and vote for Obama.

There are many states where we don't NEED the courts to enact marriage equality, we just need a small change in the state legislature of New York for example. We also don't need the rhetoric of second class civil unions as an end to Equality.

 

[reilo]

Let's talk about it.

 

[theviolenthero]

I have a simple question about this FISA bill:

Does this make the telecom companies immune to future lawsuits?

 

[Suikoguy]

Ok, well I understand where you're coming from, it does make sense. Assuming Obama would try to institute civil unions (which I don't see as a given right now, it's still not very politically viable).

Issues like that tend to have something happen during times of economic prosperity.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Somebody needs a hug.

:lol

Mandark is one of the few posters here that seems to get that gay people (and marginalized people in general) have a right to be outraged. Honestly the whole left should be outraged and be turning that heat on Obama to keep him honest and to hopefully become the force of change he sold himself as.

 

[Gaborn]

I have a simple question about this FISA bill:

Does this make the telecom companies immune to future lawsuits?

As it currently stands, yes.

 

[TDG]

So again, would you support or oppose an effort to rename interracial marriages "civil unions?"

To be honest, I couldn't care less about the terminology, personally. I really do not give a fuck. If a gay couple gets a civil union and a hetero couple gets a marriage and they both have the same rights, I honestly don't care. That said, I understand that the term "marriage" holds some magical power for a lot of people, so I support gay marriage, and I would not support renaming interracial marriages.

That said, you're comparing apples and oranges. If you consider marriage to be some great and magical term, as you clearly do, then renaming interracial marriages is a step in the wrong direction. Considering gays can currently get civil unions but have fewer rights than married couples, Obama proposing giving gays civil unions with the same rights as marriages is a step in the right direction.

 

[worldrunover]

And I will agree with you the first time a state votes to take away heterosexuals title of marriage and gives them all civil unions.

Worldrunover - even if Obama doesn't implement civil unions, his ADVOCACY for them will change the narrative of the debate in key states like New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Washington state, Oregon, where there is at least a POSSIBILITY of the legislature down the road enacting gay marriage. The bully pulpit isn't everything, but framing a discussion of marriage equality in terms of assuming civil unions ARE equality may prompt more states to adopt civil unions as a END to marriage equality, not as a BEGINNING on that path.

I completely agree that gay marriage should be called gay marriage and there should be equal rights for homosexual and heterosexual marriages. That said, and I know "civil unions" are not the same words, if they were the same as marriages (by law), wouldn't that still be something of step? Keep in mind "separate but equal" dealt with much more than words back in the 60s, we're talking facilities, schools, etc.

 

[speculawyer]

McCain's potential Supreme Court nominees could put the gay marriage movement on hold for another 20 years.

Suck it up and vote for Obama.

On hold? It could very easily go backwards. One more conservative supreme court judge and we could be back to Bowers v. Hardwick. Forget about gay marriage, they might return to calling gay sex illegal.

 

[Gaborn]

To be honest, I couldn't care less about the terminology, personally. I really do not give a fuck. If a gay couple gets a civil union and a hetero couple gets a marriage and they both have the same rights, I honestly don't care. That said, I understand that the term "marriage" holds some magical power for a lot of people, so I support gay marriage, and I would not support renaming interracial marriages.

That said, you're comparing apples and oranges. If you consider marriage to be some great and magical term, as you clearly do, then renaming interracial marriages is a step in the wrong direction. Considering gays can currently get civil unions but have fewer rights than married couples, Obama proposing giving gays civil unions with the same rights as marriages is a step in the right direction.

Really, and I think this gets lost in what I'm saying a bit, but the problem is not civil unions per se, it's that Obama is embracing them as an end to itself. He's not a gay marriage supporter, I can understand and accept that. However, by framing civil unions AS equality as he is, rather than a step along the road to equality that he's supporting as another step in that direction,THAT is what is cutting the legs out from under marriage equality. As long as civil unions for gays is framed as an end to itself Obama is 95%'ing us and it will take us decades to recover from that rhetoric.

Essentially, what he's doing is enshringing a second class system into the law and saying that with that, we'll be equal. With that, no more needs to be done. With that, we have the same rights as everyone so everyone can go home happy. End of story for everyone. That's the problem with 95%'ing us.

 

[Diablos]

But... I thought Bush was the liberal version of Bush, at least in terms of spending.

So... does that make Obama the socialist version of Bush?

How exciting!

We are not fucked if Obama is President. I hope certain posters on PoliGAF do not represent the opinions of most Obama supporters across the country. I'm as disappointed as the next guy when it comes to him supporting FISA, and would much rather see him being accepting of gay marriage. But I do not think this country is fucked should he be elected. He's already said that he wants telecom companies to be held accountable, and I fully expect him to stick to his word and do everything he can to make it a reality should he be elected. But pass or fail, I think it sends a pretty strong message that he isn't going to just look the other way and let these companies do whatever the fuck they want.

 

[speculawyer]

Let's talk about it.

Meh . . . its a dead issue, IMHO. I think Iran is just having fun playing with the oil markets to keep oil prices high.

We are not gonna attack and neither are they.

I think that some type of deal can eventually be reached . . . it would be better for both sides than the status quo. But no one is gonna bother negotiating with Bush, so we are in a holding pattern until next year.

 

[GhaleonEB]

To be honest, I couldn't care less about the terminology, personally. I really do not give a fuck. If a gay couple gets a civil union and a hetero couple gets a marriage and they both have the same rights, I honestly don't care. That said, I understand that the term "marriage" holds some magical power for a lot of people, so I support gay marriage, and I would not support renaming interracial marriages.

That said, you're comparing apples and oranges. If you consider marriage to be some great and magical term, as you clearly do, then renaming interracial marriages is a step in the wrong direction. Considering gays can currently get civil unions but have fewer rights than married couples, Obama proposing giving gays civil unions with the same rights as marriages is a step in the right direction.

All the outrage is literally over terminology. Same rights, called civil unions not marriage. What's in a name? Apparently everything.

 

[Gaborn]

All the outrage is literally over terminology. Same rights, called civil unions not marriage. What's in a name? Apparently everything.

Apparently Obama thinks so. It's so important to him he wants to set up a parallel system to stigmatize gays.

 

[Frank the Great]

There are many states where we don't NEED the courts to enact marriage equality, we just need a small change in the state legislature of New York for example. We also don't need the rhetoric of second class civil unions as an end to Equality.

*ahem*

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.

This is more than just a state's rights issue. Even if NY, NJ, CT, OR, etc all allow gay marriage, the more conservative states will never recognize other state's gay marriages unless the Supreme Court rules that by doing so, they violate the Constitution. Plus, with a conservative court, any attempt to define marriage would be much more likely, and any attempt to allow gays to marry at a federal level could potentially run into direct opposition.

So I don't see how the Supreme Court appointees aren't important. It seems like you are trying to rationalize your anti-Obama stance in an extremely ridiculous way.

Even Mercury Fred agrees that Obama would be better for gays than McCain.

 

[Frank the Great]

On hold? It could very easily go backwards. One more conservative supreme court judge and we could be back to Bowers v. Hardwick. Forget about gay marriage, they might return to calling gay sex illegal.

Your cynical sentiment is warranted, but the Court of Public Opinion would never allow that to happen.

Gay rights would be on hold for many years, but I don't see them regressing to being declared illegal.

 

[theviolenthero]

I think Iran is just having fun playing with the oil markets to keep oil prices high.

This really needs to be the top-story when anybody mentions Iran considering they're the 4th largest producer of oil in the world.

 

[Gaborn]

*ahem*



This is more than just a state's rights issue. Even if NY, NJ, CT, OR, etc all allow gay marriage, the more conservative states will never recognize other state's gay marriages unless the Supreme Court rules that by doing so, they violate the Constitution. Plus, with a conservative court, any attempt to define marriage would be much more likely, and any attempt to allow gays to marry at a federal level could potentially run into direct opposition.

So I don't see how the Supreme Court appointees aren't important. It seems like you are trying to rationalize your anti-Obama stance in an extremely ridiculous way.

Even Mercury Fred agrees that Obama would be better for gays than McCain.

Yeah, but historically it's a lot more dicey to assume that marriages in one state will be recognized in another state, that was a big problem in the 50s and 60s actually, a huge patchwork quilt of marriage laws for interracial couples where some states recognized them and some didn't have to.

And for the record, I've said Obama is better for gays on EVERY issue except gay marriage.

 

[Frank the Great]

Yeah, but historically it's a lot more dicey to assume that marriages in one state will be recognized in another state, that was a big problem in the 50s and 60s actually, a huge patchwork quilt of marriage laws for interracial couples where some states recognized them and some didn't have to.

Um...that's exactly why the Supreme Court must rule that all states must recognize the marriages of other states. Was I not clear enough?

Part of the excitement over the recent ruling in California is precisely for this reason. The Supreme Court cannot judge a case that isn't brought to them, and up until now it has been impossible for a gay couple to actually be aggrieved when trying to be recognized in other states for their marriage (In MA, only residents or soon-to-be gay residents can have marriage licenses.)

The hope is that a gay couple in California will move away, and sue whatever state they move to after their marriage isn't recognized. This will force the Supreme Court (it WOULD go up to the SC) to make a decision on whether or not state-level marriage rights need to be recognized in every state. This would be a HUGE victory if the outcome is positive.

However, if this happens during a McCain presidency after he appoints his conservative judges...do you see where I'm getting at? This is just one potential example for disaster for the gay rights movement if there is a conservative-stacked court. There are many many more nightmare scenarios. This is what I mean when I say the gay rights movement will be "on hold" for 20 years; nothing will get done because a conservative court wouldn't budge.

One of the most important issues for the gay rights movement is the appointment of SC judges, and you would be utterly foolish to be in favor of gay rights and in opposition to Obama and his inevitable Liberal appointees.

 

[maximum360]

Lou Dobbs is frothing at the mouth about Obama saying that American kids need learn spanish while also careful to note that he has not taken the time to understand the context of the statement at all.

 

[theBishop]

This post is being monitored.

 

[speculawyer]

This really needs to be the top-story when anybody mentions Iran considering they're the 4th largest producer of oil in the world.

Indeed . . . . just look at this . . . a big chunk of a business story on oil prices is all about Iran playing yank-the-chain games.

Iran. Earlier in the day, crude futures were up as much as $2.24 as investors were set on edge by the Iranian missile test.

According to state-owned television, Iran launched nine long- and mid-range missiles as part of a war games exercise. Tests included the firing of a 1,200 mile-range Shahab-3 missile, which is purportedly capable of hitting targets inside Israel.

"Our finger is always on the trigger," said General Hossein Salami, commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard on state TV.

The tests added to concerns over Iran's nuclear program and the possibility that the country could blockade the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway that carries a large percentage of the world's oil supply.

Rhetoric from Iran has been mixed over the past week, sending ripples through the oil market. "It's a three-ring circus over there," said Orr.

A week ago, Iran threatened to blockade the Strait of Hormuz if the country was attacked, sending oil higher. Iran tried to close the strait once before by laying sea mines during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

And crude prices slid more than $9 a barrel Monday and Tuesday after Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad eases tensions by saying he did not expect a future armed conflict with Israel or the United States.

The threat of reduced production from Iran, the second-largest producing member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, along with a potential blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, gives Iran a powerful economic one-two punch, said Neal Dingman, senior energy analyst with Dahlman Rose & Co.

http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/080709/070908_oil.html

 

[syllogism]

This post is being monitored.

Just like it has been since 70s

 

[worldrunover]

Lou Dobbs is frothing at the mouth about Obama saying that American kids need learn spanish while also careful to note that he has not taken the time to understand the context of the statement at all.

You know, I listened to his speech yesterday, and heard him say this and thought to myself "dear god, pundits are wallowing in their own shit right now". It could SO EASILY be taken out of context and used as him being an appeaser to our arch-enemy Mexican neighbors.

 

[Diablos]

Lou Dobbs is frothing at the mouth about Obama saying that American kids need learn spanish while also careful to note that he has not taken the time to understand the context of the statement at all.

Lou Dobbs is a gigantic tool and I hope he gets booted off the air someday.

He sounds so insincere and, y'know, toolish -- despite his show's focus.

 

[scorcho]

liberals watch Lou Dobbs?

 

[Gaborn]

Um...that's exactly why the Supreme Court must rule that all states must recognize the marriages of other states. Was I not clear enough?

Except it's not clear if there IS any need for other states to recognize other states marriage laws if they conflict with their own public policy. Marriage has always been a lot more amorphous a concept under the law because it has changed so much, but also because it varies so significantly and can legally change so rapidly in the law.

Part of the excitement over the recent ruling in California is precisely for this reason. The Supreme Court cannot judge a case that isn't brought to them, and up until now it has been impossible for a gay couple to actually be aggrieved when trying to be recognized in other states for their marriage (In MA, only residents or soon-to-be gay residents can have marriage licenses.)

I understand this too. If the supreme court rules in favor of gay marriage being recognized in all 50 states that would be a good thing up to a point, but I do think it's a bit soon for that on a national level. I don't want, and I fear gay marriage becoming the next abortion issue. When the Loving case was decided the majority of states had struck down their anti-miscegnation laws a while ago, it had been mostly settled in many states already. Right now gay marriage is much more negatively viewed and i don't think a Supreme Court decision at this point can do much more than provide real impetus for the anti-gay marriage movement.

Understand I support gay marriage of course, I just think that it's better to work it at a state level for now, get some of the states that realistically may enact marriage equality at a state level to do so, build up momentum, and THEN bring it to the Court.

The hope is that a gay couple in California will move away, and sue whatever state they move to after their marriage isn't recognized. This will force the Supreme Court (it WOULD go up to the SC) to make a decision on whether or not state-level marriage rights need to be recognized in every state. This would be a HUGE victory if the outcome is positive.

However, if this happens during a McCain presidency after he appoints his judges...do you see where I'm getting at?

Absolutely, which is why I view working at the state level to change hearts and minds to be so important. Remember if we were to lose such a case the worst that would happen is gay marriage would NOT be recognized nation wide at that time. If we are to win we better be ready to REALLY fight the FMA as there will be a MASSIVE backlash.

One of the most important issues for the gay rights movement is the appointment of SC judges, and you would be utterly foolish to be in favor of gay rights and in opposition to Obama and his inevitable Liberal appointees.

On pure gay issues you're right again, Obamas judges would be more gay friendly than McCains, I'm NOT a McCain supporter to be clear but I would say on other issues (eminent domain comes to mind and the abortion of a decision that was Kelo) I'd tend to not trust Obama's judges.

 

[speculawyer]

Your cynical sentiment is warranted, but the Court of Public Opinion would never allow that to happen.

Gay rights would be on hold for many years, but I don't see them regressing to being declared illegal.

You are probably right . . . but you never know. Scalia is theocratic fascist. And Thomas just says "Whatever Scalia said" and Alito isn't much better. And if McCain appointed another theocrat, it could be close. But I think closet-gay Roberts wouldn't go along with. (OK, I don't know if he is a closet case but it wouldn't surprise me. He kinda seems like one of those repressed types and his two kids are adopted.)

 

[Diablos]

liberals watch Lou Dobbs?

WELL HE IS ON CNN YOU KNOW! COMMUNIST NEWS NETWORK!!![/kneejerk Republican response]

 

[Frank the Great]

Absolutely, which is why I view working at the state level to change hearts and minds to be so important. Remember if we were to lose such a case the worst that would happen is gay marriage would NOT be recognized nation wide at that time. If we are to win we better be ready to REALLY fight the FMA as there will be a MASSIVE backlash.

You're totally wrong here. If you were to lose such a case, it would set a precedent. It would become law.

Liberal judges are necessary for the plight of the gay rights movement. Imagine if the civil rights leaders had decided to work for desegregation rights state by state instead of appealing to the greater part of the country and the federal government? They would have never gotten anywhere.

I understand the conflicting nature of being a Libertarian (I use to be one myself,) but sometimes you just have to recognize that in order to get certain things, the federal government is necessary.

 

[scorcho]

wait, is Andrea Mitchell trying to say there is no clear leader in Iran? Ahmadinejad has power?

the mindless drone continues.

 

[NewLib]

You are probably right . . . but you never know. Scalia is theocratic fascist. And Thomas just says "Whatever Scalia said" and Alito isn't much better. And if McCain appointed another theocrat, it could be close. But I think closet-gay Roberts wouldn't go along with. (OK, I don't know if he is a closet case but it wouldn't surprise me. He kinda seems like one of those repressed types and his two kids are adopted.)

I dont understand how Scalia is the one your scared of since he is the only conservative justice who has broken with the Republican Party on issues. I be more scared of the fact Roberts, Alito, and Thomas vote whatever Bush tells them to vote.