T Nation

Obama Admin: Still Anti-Gay


#1

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE58H57T20090918

mike


#2

I think the administration did the right thing, since they are bound to enforce current law. At the same time, they've made it clear that they consider the current law to be discriminatory and think it should be changed.


#3

Hate to say it, but forlife is quite clearly correct here.


#4

Somebody needs to take obama to a gay bar. After all Lincon was gay see:


#5

can't edit my post since it's not showing up. But forlife, out of curiosity do you think that the same standard applies to California's amendment? i.e. that the courts are bound to uphold it because it is an amendment but that it should be changed? (actually, I pretty much take for granted your position that it should be repealed/changed, what about the first part?)


#6

I like to compare anyone who is against gay marriage now to anyone that was against civil rights in the 60s. It's eventually going to happen, no matter what. The right's stance on this will clearly be outdated before long (5 years?) and it will hurt them.


#7

LOL, we'll see.


#8

Whats that supposed to mean? Lanky is right, this is stupid for the right to be against this. The basic opposition stems from religious beliefs and those beliefs have no place in politics. T hink gays are disgusting as much as the next person, but who gives a flying fuck if they get married? This is just some arbitrary bullshit argument for old republicans and religious folk who are afraid of the devil. This is one of the reasons the republican party has lost my support, they moved away from thier small government values and champion these ridiculous fucking social issues with all thier ferver. Gregus, I respect you a lot, but please let this shit go, it is not even within the top 100 issues that are really important to our country and you know this.

V


#9

They are not anti-gay. They are charged with upholding the law. Like it or not, the DOMA is the current law.


#10

Well said, although I must say that their anti gay marriage stance is probably the only spot in which I'm in extreme disagreement with conservative values. Other than that, I'm mostly on board.

I have no problem with people upholding the current laws, but they are shooting themselves in the foot by not embracing gay marriage earlier because it's inevitable. In 5-10 years, they'll be getting married and I couldn't give two shits about it. Good for them.


#11

Gay marriage is not about marriage, it's about benefits. If gays wanted to be married they would be establishing long term monogamous relationships already. I saw recent stats that only 1-4% will marry when it is allowed. It's just about benefits.

And if they can get married, why not marry your buddy if he has better benefit? what, you need to have sex to be married. People are doing that before they get married and because you are married does not necessarily mean sex is going on.

Gay marriage is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard.


#12

I hate to break it to you, but I could just as easily marry a female friend for the benefits. And who cares if it IS about benefits? Let them have them!

And if it's only going to be 1-4% anyway, it doesn't sound like it's going to make such a big difference, so why such a big stink about letting it happen?

I generally like your posts, but I haven't been able to swallow anything I've seen written about why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. No pun intended. :wink:


#13

That's because the Right's homophobic streak (mostly inherited from the Moral Majority in the 90s)have nothing conservative about it. Conservative, in the correct political sense, means that the government stays out of (i.e. is agnostic) to social and personal issues/agendas. Someone like Ron Paul is a better conservative than Mike Huckabee.

One has to see the hypocrisy in calling the government the root of all evil and demanding that it stay out of your life, then turning around and trying to use the government to enforce a social agenda (in this case deny two consenting adults the ability to enter into whatever acts or contracts they wish).


#14

Again, well said.

PS - Ron Paul rocks, although I think we're entirely too big to go back to the gold standard.


#15

Yes, I think the same standard applies to California's amendment, with one caveat. If the Supreme Court determined that the amendment was unconstitutional, then it would need to be revised. Unless that happens though, the amendment stands and should be enforced.


#16

It's absolutely mind boggling to me that a President of the United States has to concern himself with the rights of homosexuals. One can only imagine what's around the corner if we continue down this road.


#17

And this ridiculous comparison is why nobody takes this shit seriously...Talk to any black person who grew up in that era and they will be rightly insulted by it. It's not even close.


#18

I'm not comparing the injustice, I'm just saying gay marriage is inevitable (just as civil rights for minorities was inevitable), and it's going to hurt the right. Shit, they're still being called racists to this very day (which no doubt has roots back to the civil rights era).


#19

I agree, and the statistical trends bear this out. Polls have steadily moved upward in favor of gay rights, to the point where gay marriage and civil unions are actually legal in several states. I'm just glad it is happening in my lifetime.


#20

I also believe that people will eventually see abortion for what it is and that will be put to an end.