Discrimination Laws Remain Intact

I've taken some heat for what I've said about Obama in the past on The Independent blog, and I guess I'll take some more heat for attacking the only "hope" so many people have.

There is a basic mentality--one which I was caught up in for a long time--that begins with the cross-town rivalry of high school sports. In short, we learn that in every situation, there are only two options, one is right, and the other is wrong, and above all, stick by the team and beat the other side. Another way of putting it is that people think that the enemy of your enemy is automatically your friend, but in many cases, this isn't true. (One example of this was when the U.S. found out that Josef Stalin who was our ally in WW2 had some hardcore differences with us.

Now to Obama: By the end of Bush's term people were burned out on the war, and what they saw as the encroachment of our civil liberties and McCain as a continuation of Bush's policies so they were good and ready for a radical departure from the status quo. They had two *mainstream* alternatives (as opposed to supporting Kucinich) to the possibility of a twelve-year Republican run at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the two choices consisting of Hillary Clinton, and the young Senator from Illinois who on the surface, was free from the baggage of politics-as-usual. Here was a young, charismatic guy the young folks who are used as fodder for warfare could relate to and was clearly the anti-Bush, and wasn't an establishment figure as Clinton was. The battle lines were drawn: Obama was out to unseat the cross-town rival McCain, so he must be ok, right?

As we know, within the Democratic Party voters, there are issues that are more important to some than to others, and the same thing goes for Republican voters, and to a number of people in both camps, there are enough differences between the two parties to justify their support of their respective teams, but the two issues I saw that seemed to be in the forefront of those calling for a regime change were civil liberties, as well as the conflict in Iraq we've been in that's been around longer than some of the solders that are fighting in it. (One of two)

(two of two) In this fever-pitch emotion of "hope and change", people overlooked something Obama said before he got elected which was that he planned to expand the war to Afghanistan, and they also ignored the fact that he voted for the reauthorization of The Patriot Act in 2006, but like his supporters are fond of saying: "Nobody's perfect".

Small-government advocates complained about Bush as his term progressed as well; they cited The Patriot Act as an infringement on civil liberties and the copious amount of $$$ spent on the war and other programs. About Bush, right-wing talk show host Michael Savage would bemoan “He's spending money like a drunken sailor", but then again, in 2000, it seemed as though the voters in the Republican primary were more interested in nominating someone who could appeal to both sides rather than nominating a true conservative. In short, voters on both sides of the political aisle feel betrayed by the last two presidents.

I'm not posting to state my position on the war, The Patriot Act, nor any other position of either party, but to point out how human nature is such that people get so caught up in the "enemy of your enemy is your friend" mentality, that they fail to check to see of the person they are supporting is truly their friend.

What you are learning is that politicians ride the wave of discontent in order to get votes. It’s easy to look at the politicians themselves as being the source of the problem, but until people within a given political party get past their fixation on simply beating the other party (parties), and craft a clear-cut platform and make it clear to their party’s nominee that on that platform they are expected to carry out the will of those who vote them into office, the voters will only have themselves to blame.

With all this in mind, it should come as no suprise to see Obama backpeddling on issues, and unless people get truly involved in the polticial process and quit bickering among themselves, the people they elect will continue to dissapoint them.

"The DOMA brief equated consensual same-sex marriage between two adults to pedophilia and incest.

Not quite the “fierce advocate” I was hoping for."

Yep, straight from the Obomanation Administration.

Here's Rachel Maddow's segment on the topic, which is a bit more scathing of Obama although they do recognize that Obama probably never saw the language himself before the document was released:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP76-N2qx...

I like what Bill Clausen said, except that I would add there is another really big component to his theory that he didn't seem to mention. The media. They are the ones who mold and shape public opinion. They are the ones who tell us who has a chance at winning an election and who doesn't. Now THAT'S power. When you find out that the mainstream media in our country is owned by only 6 (yes SIX) large corporations, we find out where the real interests in our media lay. We find out who is sponsoring our elected representatives with re-election campaign money. We find out where their interests truly lie.

The only way we can depart from this corporatist environment is to get the Federal Govt. OUT of the business of providing unconstitutional services. Leave it to the states! If Californians like welfare, then decrease our federal income taxes so that we can pay higher state taxes to cover our welfare costs. The Federal Government should only ensure that contracts are upheld as well as prosecuting against fraud, theft and injury. Oh ya, a military to keep out foreign invaders would be nice too.. especially one that doesn't have a pre-emptive attack philosophy that fuels global terrorism.

Wow you're broken and have serious issues. Gays are like 2% of the population, but it's awesome how you think that to be "equal", that the other 98% of people have to bend to your whim over night. Otherwise we're all immoral evil homophobes just looking to keep you down... Yep that's the other 98% of us...

Ahh this used to be such a great paper, but over the last year or so it's turned into a left leaning propaganda machine.

bronc, this paper has been left leaning for at least the last five years. Dunno what rock you've been living under.

And since when are basic human rights "bending to a whim"? People in wheelchairs are what, <2% of the population? So no need for them to marry, right? And I guess people in wheelchairs don't need to serve in the military, right?

Get over it. Gay people are just people. It's not a disease. Your fear is pathetic.

What's really sad, is that to this day, I have NEVER seen a single, reasonable argument, *against* gay marriage. All I've seen is emotional, religious rhetoric--and even that includes a lot of "blinders on" thinking.

Anyone have anything, remotely resembling a logical refutation of the issue? (And no, bronc, simple math doesn't count--if you think so, you should brush up on your Civics and American Government, regarding equality and the difference in a "direct democracy" and "representative democracy ".)

equus_posteriori:

I honestly believe that everyone, regardless of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc. should be treated equally with respect and dignity. I do not, however, think that the definition of a word should have to be changed in order to make homosexuals "feel" equal. Now I'm sure that comment alone probably just placed me in your category of being an emotional religious individual who is stuck with their blinders on. If that's the case, don't read any further because my opinion will probably just make you more upset than you already sound.

I look at it this way: A fork is a fork, and a spoon is a spoon. I don't look at one piece of flatware being better than the other, simply that they look different, are used differently, and have different purposes. One isn't better than the other though. I wouldn't say there's inequality between the two pieces, just that they're two different things. What would the purpose be, then, to rename what we know to be a fork, a spoon?

I am all for allowing homosexual couples the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples have, but I just don't get why homosexuals even want to use the term marriage when it has always been a term for a lifelong union between a man and woman. Because a homosexual union is obviously different from a heterosexual union, there should be no problem in accepting a different term that provides all of the same rights.

Is equality about rights or labels? And why wage such a war for equality when homosexuals could have it by simply choosing a term that honors their unique union?

". . .Because a homosexual union is obviously different from a heterosexual union, there should be no problem in accepting a different term that provides all of the same rights."

How are they different--just because the genitalia is the same, in a "homosexual union". I understand the logic of the fork/spoon argument, but it's very flawed. A fork and a spoon are different *utensils*. They are the same in the way that a "homosexual marriage", and a "heterosexual marriage" are both marriages. Your own usage of the words "union", with the homo- and hetero-sexual modifiers illustrates the same point--that they are the SAME (unions). The only reason to use the sexual modifiers, is to cubby-hole one separate from the other.

I will also briefly interject that "marriage" *might* be assumed as a religious term, but IMO that doesn't really fly. If you could roll back the calendar, and there were never any "civil marriages", then perhaps the church could lay claim to the term, but not now. . . .

Let me put it to you this way: If a "gay marriage" were suddenly deemed to be a "garriage", how would you describe it?. . .As a marriage between two gay people, right?--which goes back to it BEING a marriage!

I don't believe in the semantics argument, expressly about the word "marriage", being remotely logical--this boils down to both sides being able to say, "Why get upset over *just a word*?". So, that makes it a wash.

BTW, when I posted about "blinders", I was not trying to bait anyone, but draw out the idea that, because of personal religious views, many people lose their objectivity. I would even give you the assertion that God is against homosexuality--it still doesn't give ANYONE the right, in America, to enact socially restrictive legislation--when the Constitution overrides. Sure, you can follow your heart and your beliefs, and do what you think is "God's work", but that is still an issue of FAITH, and not RIGHT. Besides, if God saw fit to allow human beings the free will to "choose" homosexuality (it being a *choice* is another argument altogether), then who are we humans to second-guess Him? Is it our right, to take away what is given by Him?

As it is, anyone of a religious bent against homosexuality (or homosexual unions/marriage) will do what they can, BECAUSE they can. If the California system of initiative and referendum allows a 'tyranny of the majority', which is a numbers game, then those with the greatest numbers will have the power.

Lastly, if you think about it, the denial of marriage rights for gay people is not very much different than the denial of rights to someone who practices a particular religion--and let me remind you, that religious persecution was one reason that many emigrated to the American Colonies. Persecution or those who seek to live with their beliefs, whilst "doing no harm", is just wrong, whether it is about religion or sexuality.

Equus, I appreciate the dialogue, but I think you're making this more confusing for yourself than it needs to be...

If a union was called a "garriage," it would be just that, a union between a homosexual couple. If a union is called a "marriage," then it is understood that it is between a man and a woman.

And yes, because the genitalia is the same for a homosexual couple, there is a difference. And because some feel this is a very minor discrepancy should we go ahead and change the term, "homosexual" to "heterosexual" as well? Or just toss all terms describing sexual orientation out the window? After all, it would leave everyone feeling equal, right? Because when heterosexual union is called a marriage, we're throwing obvious differences out the window so that everyone will "feel" the same.

As for your religious views on the topic, that you decided to add for some reason, you can believe whatever you choose to. But just because you are obviously angry with the religious opposition to the idea of giving a gay union the title of marriage, doesn't really shed any light on our conversation. Remember, you didn't want any "religious rhetoric." But for one reason or another you're including your views on it all the same.

I'm not giving you my opinions on whether homosexuality is right or wrong. I just wanted to add to the conversation by giving you something "remotely resembling a logical refutation of the issue."

PST-- I think we will simply wind up agreeing to disagree on what I see as a minor thing--the semantics argument, on the word "marriage", as opposed to the *idea* of marriage.

The reason that "hetero" and "homo" are used, is to specifically define to differing lines of human attraction and sexuality. I see the word "marriage" as defining a covenant between two people--the sexuality of said two people is not the issue. I think you believe otherwise.

As for the "religious rhetoric", I brought it up, to show an example of the kinds of arguments that *appear* to be logical, but aren't really. In a way, they may be extesible into a logical argument, but again, I think they suffer from the aforementioned "blindness"--I don't wish to type another extremely long post, so I will skip further examples or thoughts about this.

Oh, let me also refute the assertion that I am "angry with the religious opposition". The opposite, in fact. I am *saddened* that there are those among us that beieve that their faith trumps all others' rights--when faith and religion should be formost between the individual, and their chosen deity. Now, I will admit to some frustration with what I feel is ignorance, brought about by religion, but not wholly qualified anger. For the most part, religion is a good thing "on paper", and sometime even in practice, but my exposure to the *practioners* often just leaves me shaking my head.

PST: "the term marriage ... has always been a term for a lifelong union between a man and woman." Actually, not quite. Until the mid 1960s, in 1/3 of the US states, the term marriage was restricted to the union of a man and a woman of the same race. Was it illegitimate to change that definition?

Equus,
I think you're right when you say that on this issue we'll have to agree to disagree. I did, however, agree with much of your last post and also often find myself frustrated with ignorance brought about by misinterpreted religious beliefs. I just won't let that keep me from continuing to seek truth. Thanks for your post.

pk:
Marriage HAS always been a term for a lifelong union between a man and a woman. Even in those 1/3 states that you mentioned. That's my point!

Now, there is a difference between a definition and a law. I sure hope you would obviously agree. While you may disagree with a law, think that it is hateful, or discriminatory, deciding to re-name something in order to suit your feelings, and then expect everyone else to follow along is unfair in itself.

So while I completely disagree with the discrimination written into the law that took place even up until the 60s like you stated, the definition did not change. The law did. Today most states won't allow 15 year-old individuals to marry without parental consent. If the law is changed and it is allowed next year, does the very definition of marriage change? No.

As I posted earlier, I honestly believe that everyone, regardless of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc. should be treated equally with respect and dignity. I do not, however, think that the very definition of a word should have to be changed in order to make homosexuals "feel" equal.

Of course there is a difference between a law and a definition, but a some terms are defined by laws. A "marriage" is what the law says it is.

In 1/3 of the states, the word "marriage" meant the union of a man and woman of the same race. That last clause was part of the legal definition of the word. The clause has since been dropped. The definition of the word has changed.

You're missing the point. Marriage has ALWAYS been a union between man and a woman. We aren't simply dropping a clause here.

The two unions, while both unions, are obviously different. Homosexual couples can't reproduce, while heterosexual couples can. Should we be required to start calling homosexual couples who have adopted a child the biological parents so that there is a feeling of equality?

You don't call a spoon a fork. Not necessarily unequal, different.

In spite of how often you repeat your assertion, it is NOT true that marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman, period. Sometimes it was a union between a man and a woman of the same race. The last clause was part of the legal definition, not an irrelevant add-on. A mixed-race couple in one of those states could NOT be considered to have entered into a "marriage" in spite of their being a man and a woman, so clearly a definition that stopped where you want it to stop would be a wrong definition of what a marriage actually was.

In any event, the definition of marriage has already been changed in a number of states, and so, to be lexicographically correct, it ought to be defined along the lines of "a union between people as sanctioned by the laws of the locality in which they live," with no mention of race or gender being part of the definition itself.

So your preference for a supposed linguistic purity that never existed is already moot.

If marriage hasn't been between a man and a woman, who has it been between? We've only got a couple of genders to work with here!

Think about it, pk. Couple's of mixed race weren't allowed to marry. Marriage still existed though, between a man and woman! It was just illegal for a mixed race marriage to take place. Definitions didn't change, laws did.

A homosexual union is something completely different because it is not a union of a man and woman. A simple anatomy lesson could clear this up if you disagree. A union, yes. A marriage, no.

So once more, to repeat my assertion, marriage has always been between a man and woman, period.

Some couples of whom one partner was a man and one was a woman failed to fit the legal definition of marriage. Why? Because something else was a part of the definition: race. Not just a "man and a woman," but "a man and a woman of the same race." Think about it: The word "marriage" didn't encompass those people; now it does. To say that "Definitions didn't change, laws did" is completely blind to how legal terms acquire their meaning, and "marriage" is a legal term whose definition entails appropriate consequences: People who didn't fit the definition weren't lectured about proper linguistic usage, they were arrested. The meaning of the word changed because the law redefined it.

You claim to have identified an absolute and essential component of the definition, which happens to conflict with what anthropologists say about how the meaning of the word has varied (try "Anthropologists debunk ‘traditional marriage’ claim" at http://www.washblade.com/2004/4-16/news/...). If you have any basis for the damage you believe would ensue if people disregarded your assertions about what the word does, always has, and always should mean, other than your belief that changing the meaning of a word as you (mis)understand it should never be allowed, it would be interesting to hear it. Otherwise your position is a rather slim reed on which to deny people their claim to equal dignity under the law.

pk: I recognize that nothing I say is going to have any value to you. You don't want to recognize obvious differences, and your news is coming from washblade.com.

I guess to you, I'll just never get it...

You do have it right that nothing you say has any value to me, given that you reject out of hand a statement by the American Anthropological Association simply because it was reported on a gay-advocacy website, but you're wrong on your final point: I do think you've gotten it--we just disagree on what "it" is.

Homosexual marriages/unions were around in ancient Rome, but were legislated agains due to religious influence-

http://www.hnn.us/articles/21319.html

Wikipedia also briefly supports this, but is obviously not the best with citing sources.

I still stand on my assertion that there is no *logical* argument against gay marriage. The semantics argument is a red herring/strawman argument at best.

As pk says, ". . .your position [Defending the *word* "marriage"] is a rather slim reed on which to deny people their claim to equal dignity under the law."

"If marriage hasn't been between a man and a woman, who has it been between? We've only got a couple of genders to work with here!"

In addition to the race restriction that has been pointed out, it might be worth noting that 'marriage' has also been 'a man and women'.

The 'tradition' argument is intellectually dishonest and is used to justify present day bigotry against whatever minority group is in disfavor.

If traditions didn't change, we'd still have women without voting rights, blacks unable to own property, separate drinking fountains, bans on interracial marriage, a segregated federal military, and laws banning those of Chinese and Japanese ancestry.

Ah, those traditions. Good times, eh?

When CA became a state, the legal definition of marriage defined women as property that could be bought and sold.

I understand what PST said about the fork and spoon thing... But hasn't anyone ever heard of the spork? Americans have blended the idea of both into one to make things easier and more efficient for EVERYONE.

Plus I never really thought that the fight for Marriage equality was just about the word marriage. It's about all the laws and benefits you gain from being able to file the correct paperwork through the county and state reguarding legal assets and such...

...and because I know someone will say it. NO! A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP IS NOT THE SAME AS A MARRIAGE! Example: When my wife and I origanlly filed for domestic partnership my health insurance would charge us a "tax" for her being under me. When we said our vows and I went to change the status of my insurance there was no longer a "tax" being charged. I asked why. They said that a DP is different than a marriage in that we are "not a legal union under the court of law in our state." We were considered partners but not a couple.

This is just one of the many things that could be cleared up by legalizing same-sex marriage.

A quote to remember from an earlier Gay Girl Straight World article “Their focus was on the traditional biblical definition of marriage, rather than the legal rights and obligations that go along with a civil marriage.” Nicole Champion of Brown & Champion LLP

Right, and also, that the "Domestic Partnership" was originally setup as an *alternative* to marriage--for when older (senior) citizens wanted to co-habitate, but not get married.

Agreed, they are not the same.

And again, the only arguments that seem to be repeated, ad nauseum, tend to be from the religious/biblical corner, and should not be considered at all. I come to this conclusion, because it is often the case, where the idea of homosexuality is often derided as "a choice". And, while I don't believe that to be the truth, it's irrelevant to the argument--because even if we assume that homosexuality is a choice, then it should be afforded the same protections that are afforded to those who practice religion. After all, religion is a *choice*, and it is protected by the constitution, along with it's preferred sexual delineations and practices.
[Aside, I do not intend to pigeon-hole gay people according to their choice of sexual partners, as I believe that there is such a thing as 'gay culture', but for the sake of this argument, I think the physical sexuality is the true reservation that the religious have against the civil rights of gay people. Most, if not all, non-religious people that I know are at wost, simply ambivalent about the issue.]

agreed...