Same-sex marriage is the law of the land in Canada and in many (most?) other Western industrialized nations. It's against the law in most states in the USA.
I was aware of the fact that John McCain and Sarah Palin were opposed to legalization of same-sex marriage. Last night I was shocked to learn that Barack Obama and Joe Biden also oppose legalization of same-sex marriage.
Unless the following is incorrect ...
IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?Isn't this the 21st century? Isn't Obama supposed to be a progressive?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.
IFILL: Is that what your said?
PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.
IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let's move to foreign policy.
I'm glad you brought this up, Larry! I was a bit stunned by the revelation, too. So far I haven't seen much about this on other blogs (e.g. ScienceBlogs, Whatever), so I was wondering if I'd just missed something ...
ReplyDeleteObama is playing the "middle of the road" game all the major Democrats have played, including, if memory serves, Hillary. From campaign literature at Obama's website:
ReplyDeleteObama Supports Civil Unions that Confer “the Equivalent Legal Rights as a Marriage License.” Obama said, “I am a strong supporter of civil unions…But I also believe that civil unions have to have the equivalent legal rights as a marriage license…Right now, there are about 1,200 legal rights that are available to married couples that aren't available to same‐sex couples, even if the state recognizes civil unions…And that's not fair ‐ that's discriminatory, and it's going to need to change.”
http://obama.3cdn.net/9bbadf2e4222f1de03_5humvyu4s.pdf
In other words: give 'em marriage in everything except name. He does oppose Federal laws or a Constitutional amendmant to prevent states from giving 'em marriage in name too.
Countering the 'Gay Agenda' is one of the primary focuses of the religious right. For some reason, whenever it's brought up, it tends to mobilize those who were actively campaigning against it, and galvanize those who were sitting on the sidelines. I'm not sure what Obama or Biden's personal views are, but I think they're playing it safe with the electorate - particularly in the swing states.
ReplyDeleteI, too, support government acknowledgement of civil unions, as opposed to marriages. However, I support this for ALL couples, not just same-sex couples. Government should be in the business of acknowledging contracts, the secular side of "marriage" that administers the rights and responsibilities of married people.
ReplyDeleteIf a couple wants to get "married" in a religious setting, that's fine. If their particular religion frowns on gay/lesbian couples, so be it. But any pair of humans ought to be able to enter into a "union", that confers all the rights and responsibilities of what we currently consider "marriage".
Those couples who marry in their churches would be required to get a "union" license as well, if they want those same rights and accept those same responsibilities.
That is a TRUE separation of church and state.
Isn't Obama supposed to be a progressive?
ReplyDeleteHe's more progressive than McCain for sure, but he is far from a truly progressive candidate. Most mainstream Democratic politicians will have the same position on gay marriage as Obama, they don't support allowing gays to marry but they support civil unions which give them all the same rights as straight people but just isn't called marriage. Ya, I know, it doesn't make sense to me either.
And I'm not really sure that Obama actually feels this way and deep down inside he would be perfectly fine with having gay marriage. But because he doesn't want to alienate the more "moderate" Conservatives and conservative "Democrats" he has to take the position that gay marriage is bad because so many people down here are still uncomfortable with gay people.
You have to remember, even though our economy is in the can right now and we are bleeding both money and lives in Iraq, the majority of people down here can be easily swayed by a hot button issue like gay marriage and won't vote for any candidate who supports it, even if that candidate is easily the better choice on the other issues. As silly as it may seem, the majority of Americans care much more about whether Bill and Steve or Lucy and Lisa can get married than about the criminal activities of the current idiot in chief.
In the US, the standard is
ReplyDelete1. Democrats: Be for civil unions, oppose a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage to be between one male and one female but to allow for the states to allow or disallow same sex marriage.
2. Republicans: many are for civil unions (even George Bush) but BACK the Constitutional Amendment to ban same sex marriage.
In the US, the "fall back" stance on these issues is to "leave it to the individual states" and that is more or less what BHO is doing.
In Illinois (Obama's state), the Republicans tried to get a "no gay marriage" referendum on the state ballot but this attempt failed as no enough people would sign the petition.
As silly as it may seem, the majority of Americans care much more about whether Bill and Steve or Lucy and Lisa can get married than about the criminal activities of the current idiot in chief.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this is true in some of the most militantly religious sections of the U.S., but I'm not buying this as an assesment of U.S. public opinion as a whole unless someone produces polling data to corroborate it.
... but I'm not buying this as an assesment of U.S. public opinion as a whole unless someone produces polling data to corroborate it.
ReplyDeleteData: GW Bush was reelected. Majority of Americans voted for him.
Truth: to be elected as a president in today's USA, one has to pander to hicks. That's what Obama is doing as much as he can afford. That's called 'politics'.
wow, Biden's words twisted before your eyes by lil miss palin... maybe i underestimated her persuasive ability if shes managed to convince someone such as larry, whose normally pretty astute, that biden said something way off from the actuality.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this is true in some of the most militantly religious sections of the U.S., but I'm not buying this as an assesment of U.S. public opinion as a whole unless someone produces polling data to corroborate it.
ReplyDeleteI guarantee you that if Obama stood up before the nation tomorrow and said that he supports gay marriage and would try to push through legislation to legalize gay marriage at the federal level if elected president, he would lose his lead in the polls overnight.
For some reason, the majority of Americans seem determined to hang onto the word "marriage" for themselves. You'd have an easier time legalizing pot than you would gay marriage down here.
As far as trying to pass this off as a state's rights issue, that's just code for allowing bigots to continue to discriminate against gays. Marriage is recognized on a federal level for tax purposes and such. It is not a state's rights issue. People play the "state's rights" card with hopes that they won't look like bigots because after all, they are only trying to protect the rights of states, they don't really hate gay people. Ya right.
bruce says,
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not really sure that Obama actually feels this way and deep down inside he would be perfectly fine with having gay marriage. But because he doesn't want to alienate the more "moderate" Conservatives and conservative "Democrats" he has to take the position that gay marriage is bad because so many people down here are still uncomfortable with gay people.
I've heard this a lot from Obama supporters. Whenever he says things that aren't very progressive, or things that preserve the status quo, they make the same excuse.
There are two problems with this kind of rationalization.
1. If you are correct then it means you are comfortable with a politician who says one thing but believes another. Shame on you.
2. If you are wrong then you are voting for someone who does not share your values but you have been seduced into thinking otherwise. Shame on you.
There's a third possibility. You can vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils. I would. But if that's why your voting for him then please stop making excuses that have nothing to do with this choice.
Face up to the fact that Obama is not the Second Coming. He's just a another politician who will occupy the White House. Hopefully, he'll do less damage than the one who's there now.
anonymous says,
ReplyDeletewow, Biden's words twisted before your eyes by lil miss palin... maybe i underestimated her persuasive ability if shes managed to convince someone such as larry, whose normally pretty astute, that biden said something way off from the actuality.
Biden was asked, "Do you support gay marriage?" He answered, "No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that."
Which part of that exchange did you not understand? Do you want me to explain it to you?
Incidentally, Biden voted for the Defense of Marriage Act (1996).
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
Obama doesn't need any distractions with the gay marriage issue. There are still plenty of people in US who think he's the "antichrist", and I kid you not. An appallingly large percentage of the population takes that blather seriously. He needs to walk the fine middle line for now, blunting and counterpunching the right-wing smear attacks that are about to materialize next week. When and if he gets in office, he can ease up a bit.
ReplyDeleteThis is just a little bit of Canadian triumphalism, isn't it? Uncharacteriscally proud of yourselves for being more civilized than us Americans?
ReplyDeleteActually, I'd score the exchange as a major win for equality. Biden stated unequivocably that he and Obama supported full civil equality for same and mixed-sex unions and more or less got Palin to agree with him.
This is a huge win. Once we've got agreement on marriage in all but name, and then confront the myriad laws that require changing if we don't call it marriage, we've practically won.
There's been some silliness in California regarding the change in the wedding form from "husband and wife" to "party A and party B" and one couple refused to sign such a form. We don't necessarily need more wedding entertainment than we're already getting, but is such comedy ever unwelcome?
Well, if there's no "civil rights distinction", then it *is* a marriage, just named differently.
ReplyDeleteIt reads to me as though they do support gay marriage, they just can't face up to the fight to take the [i]word[/i] away from the faith community. That's the same sad consensus that's been settled on in the UK.
It will change in time though, mainly because everyone and their dog will refer to civil partnerships as marriages. It's just too much of a mouthful to say "civil partner" all the time rather than "husband" or "wife".
bad jim asks,
ReplyDeleteThis is just a little bit of Canadian triumphalism, isn't it? Uncharacteriscally proud of yourselves for being more civilized than us Americans?
Yes, except that it's not confined to Canada. On this issue there are many countries that are more progressive (i.e. civilized) than the USA.
Don't you agree?
Larry, on the gay rights issue, sadly I have to agree with what you said.
ReplyDeleteSomeday in the future the free world will be destroyed by those "progressive" people like Larry.
ReplyDeleteAllah is waiting for all of us.
Larry is right; the US is, in many ways, the most backward republic in the world. Rather enigmatic, if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteAnd he is also right about Obama, his position on this and many other issues suck, but it's better than what McCain seems to offer. Obama is just a politician doing the things politicians do.
Face up to the fact that Obama is not the Second Coming. He's just a another politician who will occupy the White House. Hopefully, he'll do less damage than the one who's there now.
ReplyDeleteHeh, I think there is less worry that Obama will be considered the Second Coming than whether he'll be able to win the election. After last week's move to the front by Obama, McCain this week seems to have tightened up the polling numbers again (though he hasn't pulled even AFAIK).
IMHO the kerfuffle over "gay marriage" (I use quotes because for the life of me I can't understand marriage that comes in different flavors - it's marriage or it's not) will eventually be thought of in the U.S. as the kerfuffle over "interracial marriage" is today. Unfortunately, we're not in that better future place yet by a long shot.
church of the bright lights wanted numbers on how far away we really are. The last national public opinion polls I saw on the subject were quite distressing (to me, anyway), with favorable numbers for the proposition that marriage should only be between a man and a woman in the 80+% range.
We have much more serious problems than gay marriage to worry about.
ReplyDeleteanonymous says,
ReplyDeleteWe have much more serious problems than gay marriage to worry about.
Agreed. The problems over gay marriage, prison sentences, abortion, gun control, religion, death penalty, racism, sexism, and universal health care are just symptoms of a more important issue.
Most progressives have opinions on those topics that differ from those of mainstream society. Obama is "progressive" on some of them but not on others.
How is supporting the redefiniton of marriage progressive? Because the whiney gay pride community (not all gays) expects society to switch over to their views and beliefs.
ReplyDeleteHell, your almost as bad as the gay pride nuts expecting society to reject the self-evident truth of God and embrace fanatical atheism and the worship of science that will only lead our race downhill.
This is not about equal rights anymore. The important rights can be granted in civil unions. They want society to be forced to "accept" them by having it called marraige when gay marriage itself is a contradiction of terms. If some of them had their way they would force churches to perform gay marriages too. Look at the way they have torn apart the UCC causing many churches to switch to a different organization.
ReplyDelete"They want society to be forced to "accept" them"
ReplyDeleteAnd what's wrong with that? Last time I checked, homosexuality is not a crime, so why would it be a bad thing to accept homosexuals? It's not their fault if you're a biggot, and there's no reason why they should be deprived of a right because of your biggotry.
"by having it called marraige when gay marriage itself is a contradiction of terms."
It's only a contradiction of terms because of the way marriage is currently defined. But definitions can be changed. A case in point: when women didn't have the right to vote in Canada, it was because the Constitution only allowed a person to vote, and it was thought at the time, that a woman was not a person, and therefore women should not be allowed to vote. The word "person" was then redefined to include women. And voilà! Society has not fallen because of that. (Some people were saying at the time that if women were allowed to vote, they would develop an interest in politics, and then would no longer be content with staying home and have babies, which then would lead to the destruction of society. Rings a bell?)
"If some of them had their way they would force churches to perform gay marriages too."
The government is not allowed to interfere with religions, so your fear is ungrounded. Even in the province of Quebec (Canada) where gay marriage is legal, religions cannot be forced legally to accept gay marriage. That's because there are two kinds of marriages - civil and religious. The legal redefinition of marriage only affects civil marriage.
Robert M.