http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ic_issue_.html


Why Obama’s Words Didn’t Go Far Enough
Marriage equality is a federal constitutional right—not a state issue—and it’s time to start acting like it.
By Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West

Posted Friday, May 11, 2012, at 7:10 PM ET

When President Obama announced his support of same-sex marriage, he talked broadly about “equality” and “fairness.” He spoke of “opposing discrimination against gays and lesbians” and making sure that nobody is treated as “less than full citizens when it comes to their legal rights.” It was a powerful moment—historic and emotional. In the Aaron Sorkin version, the orchestra would have soared at this point as the supporting cast members exchanged teary-eyed yet knowing nods.

But then President Obama described how these rights should be protected and the music stopped with a squawk. Same-sex marriage, he said, is not in fact a federal issue but should be left to the states. He praised as “a healthy process and a healthy debate” the current patchwork of state referenda, amendments, laws, and judicial opinions that our marriage federalism has produced. He said he didn’t want “to nationalize this issue” and added that the states are “working through this issue … all across the country.” Adam Serwer and the New York Times editorial page were quick to point out that this doesn’t represent much equality and fairness for Americans who live in, say, North Carolina, a state that just did away with both gay marriage and civil unions by referendum. Lyle Denniston goes further, suggesting that the president opposes the Defense of Marriage Act because it’s an attempt to federalize marriage.

The “marriage is a purely state issue” rhetoric has been around for some time. It’s become a familiar default argument, maybe because it sounds fair and feels safe. But having “evolved” this far on gay marriage, the time has come to evolve our own thinking on what is really at stake when we talk about marriage equality. We must embrace that this is a constitutional and not a democratic issue. Equality is not a popularity contest. This is hardly a radical argument. It’s Supreme Court doctrine: Our rights to be treated as equal and full citizens do not evaporate when we cross state lines. Rather there are certain essential liberties, even in the realm of marriage, we all enjoy regardless of our ZIP code.


a resounding :tro: to the bolded! it's why i'm somewhat pleased, but not completely so, with barrack and his half-stepping. and as i learned with pinochle, you should never, ever half-step. yet another instance where he's sort of leading, but not quite. he's the mclellan of his day. has plenty of arms and soldiers, but won't ever, ever make a concerted plan to attack.

I think Rup was just trying to make a correlation as to what people think is right and fair. Im sure the guy with 3 wives thinks he is just as right as someone who is gay when it comes to marriage and who are we to judge him if this is all between consenting adults.

"Social Security, Medicaid, health care directives, estate planning, and immigration all hinge on marital status, which in turn hinges on the whim of the voters. The courts are just now wading into that morass and we won’t lie, it’s ugly out there.

The current system is unsustainable. Just as our country couldn’t go on with a mix of free states and slave states, we cannot continue with this jumble of equal marriage states and discriminatory states. Recognizing a federal constitutional right is the only, and the best, method to put this issue to rest."


also from the article, and a great point made.

except for the fact that homosexuality isn't illegal, while polygamy is. and like i said, when polygamy is legalized for some and not others, than it would apply in the argument regarding constitutionality. but unlike marriage, it's not allowed just for some.

when interracial marriages were being legalized, i wonder if rupe asked 'what if there were no black people?'

The only part of polygamy that is illegal is the marriage part. A guy is allowed to live with 3 women. Living a polygamist lifestyle is not illegal. You just can't get the marriage license. This is the why it is a good analogy. The act of being gay is not illegal. You just can't get a gay marriage license. I don't know what part of the analogy is so confusing to you. Once again, the act of living a polygamist lifestyle is not illegal, only the marriage part is. The act of living a gay lifestyle is not illegal, only the marriage part is. That is why the analogy makes sense.

With regard to the "what if their were no gay people question", you are still not understanding what my point was. Black people are clearly an identifiable group. If there was a law against interracial marriage, black people would not be allowed to marry white people. Even if black people didn't identify with being black, they still would not be able to be marry white people under that law. So even if black people did not consider themselves part of a group, they would still be being discriminated against (as both a group and as individuals) if they were not allowed to marry white people.

If gay people did not identify themselves as being gay (in other words if there were no gay people per se), yet still wanted to marry people of the same sex, could a person still make a good argument that not being allowed to marry the same sex is discrimination? That was the question I was asking. There is not necessarily a right or wrong answer. With black people, if they didn't identify themselves as being black, and wanted to marry white people, I think a person could still make a strong argument of discrimination (if people of color were not allowed to marry white people).

i just noticed that one person voted that only hetero couples should get tax breaks. wow.

and for those who don't think there is discrimination against homosexuals:

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/...udgeship_.html

Good grief.

"Taking my country back" seems rather appropriate this election cycle. But not for the same reason as 2 years ago.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

We will take the country back, as long as the "Tea Party" people vote.

How did I miss this the first time?

Wow.

And this is the Word according to you. Never once does Jesus say gays are going to hell, his best friend was a lady of the night. Study up.

Dude, seriously...just stfu.

I was listening to npr the other day, and the issue of trying to tie polygamy into the gay marriage discussion. Guy made some good points. As he said, the right for gays to marry is a question of civil rights. Polygamists however try to use freedom of religion as their bulwark. Its two completely different arguments.

After all, if straight marriage doesnt correlate with multiple spouses, why would gay marriage?

He also mentioned that in this argument, gays in many cases now hold marriage in higher esteem than most straight folks, i agree with that assessment. Many arguing against gay marriage mention the sanctity of marriage, how its best for children....but look atthe high divorce rate, which only goes higher when its your second marriage..or third, etc.

How bout straight couples living together unmarried...is that a sin? usta be.

btw, you think AlreadyHome's post was serious?...i thought it was humorous:), but i just woke up from a nap...:zz:

wow
 

lol what a crazy subject to chat about ....wow

but is the american way


change your attitude, i wet you all with the Holly Water