|
My prediction on the long-term prospects for gay marriage in the US: It seems pretty inevitable that over the next decade or so, most of the more liberal states will recognize gay marriage, but conservative states in the Great Plains and Deep South will undoubtedly hold back. Unless it's enforced federally, I don't see a state like Alabama ever moving forward, just like certain states might never have desegregated schools if the feds hadn't forced them to. Unlike racial discrimination, sexual orientation isn't protected, so it would probably take a constitutional amendment to force states to change, and that will take a long time. So I see a semi-permanent divide in marriage-equality between liberal and conservative states that might last a generation or more. Thoughts?
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Oh no we killed a ~citizen~ with a drone. That's totally worse than killing literally millions of people with regular guns and drones that weren't citizens, in all of our unneccesary wars. Christ. Using the military on your own people is actually a super big deal.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Using the military on your own people is actually a super big deal.  And honestly, which is the bigger "crime"? What Obama is doing in Yemen and Pakistan or what LBJ did in Vietnam? I say LBJ, but he had 67 Democrats in the Senate and didn't have every single one of his bills filibustered so he's a progressive hero, so we don't mention that. And this is a marriage equality thread anyways, and Barack Obama is BY FAR the most LGBT-friendly President in history, and some people (on the right and on the left) have sour grapes because they are pissed at him no matter what he does, because he's an imaginary socialist or because he didn't change politics forever, respectively. gohuskies fucked around with this message at 06:59 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
If it's such a big deal make a thread about it.Corrupt Politician posted:My prediction on the long-term prospects for gay marriage in the US: DOMA section 3 (federal government does not recognize same sex marriage) is gone by 2014 unless something shocking happens with the Supreme Court. It will be a bit of a wait to get rid of section 2 (states cannot be forced to recognize same sex marriage). On the one hand there's no legitimate basis for DOMA. On the other hand SCOTUS does not like ruling against the laws of 40+ states. When Loving was decided only 16 states had laws against interracial marriage and the Civil Rights Act had already passed. When Lawrence was decided only 14 states had sodomy laws. I will arbitrarily says DOMA lasts twice as long as DADT so nationwide marriage equality happens in 2030.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Barack Obama is BY FAR the most LGBT-friendly President in history Our super-LGBT-friendly president believes that we should leave gay marriage up to the states to decide - and 30 of those states have already banned same-sex marriage. Such a brave and nuanced position!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:Our super-LGBT-friendly president believes that we should leave gay marriage up to the states to decide - and 30 of those states have already banned same-sex marriage. Such a brave and nuanced position! Which doesn't refute my statement that "Barack Obama is BY FAR the most LGBT-friendly President in history" at all. Unless you'd like to name a President in U.S. history who's been more LGBT-friendly? Oh, that's right, you can't.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 07:18
|
|
|
It there is one thing that I hope for at least with Obama's announcement is that he will convince more African Americans as their de facto leader that gay marriage is not something to be frowned upon.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 07:24
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Which doesn't refute my statement that "Barack Obama is BY FAR the most LGBT-friendly President in history" at all. Unless you'd like to name a President in U.S. history who's been more LGBT-friendly? Oh, that's right, you can't. I didn't try to refute your point because it was both correct and meaningless. The only two presidents who weren't overtly antagonistic to LGBT folks were Obama and Clinton, and Clinton was president at a time when even a majority of Democrats were opposed to same-sex marriage. So yes, out of a sample size of two presidents who a) had opinions on gay rights that b) weren't overtly homophobic, Obama was the one of those two who happened to the president at a time when the majority of Americans were in favor of gay rights. Good for him! I bet it took a lot of courage to finally stand up with the majority of Americans, and a supermajority of his own party, in favor of civil rights.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 07:56
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:I bet it took a lot of courage to finally stand up with the majority of Americans, and a supermajority of his own party, in favor of civil rights. Obama doesn't, and rarely even during his first 2 years did he have, a super majority in congress. I agree somewhat with your sentiment, but you don't need to exaggerate for effect like this.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 08:08
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Obama doesn't, and rarely even during his first 2 years did he have, a super majority in congress. I agree somewhat with your sentiment, but you don't need to exaggerate for effect like this. I think he's saying that a supermajority of Democrats in Washington support gay marriage. I'm not sure if that's accurate or not but that's my take on what gtrmp meant.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 08:11
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Obama doesn't, and rarely even during his first 2 years did he have, a super majority in congress. I agree somewhat with your sentiment, but you don't need to exaggerate for effect like this. Polling consistently shows that a supermajority of self-identified Democratic voters support same-sex marriage.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 08:16
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:I didn't try to refute your point because it was both correct and meaningless. The only two presidents who weren't overtly antagonistic to LGBT folks were Obama and Clinton, and Clinton was president at a time when even a majority of Democrats were opposed to same-sex marriage. So yes, out of a sample size of two presidents who a) had opinions on gay rights that b) weren't overtly homophobic, Obama was the one of those two who happened to the president at a time when the majority of Americans were in favor of gay rights. Good for him! I bet it took a lot of courage to finally stand up with the majority of Americans, and a supermajority of his own party, in favor of civil rights. Regarding those last two: the Southerners jettisoned the party for good by 2000, and the working class whites abandoned the party in the decade since. Filling their place are college-educated urban professionals, youth and women, who -- unlike the former -- support gay marriage. And the party is shifting to reflect those interests, that's all. I suppose you can be angry Obama didn't endorse gay marriage sooner, but I think you're misunderstanding how this poo poo works. The president doesn't lead public opinion either, he follows and responds, and he reflects the nature of his political coalition. And he won't do anything on his own -- those interests have to apply pressure to *make* him to do what they want. Glitterbomber posted:Using the military on your own people is actually a super big deal. Edit: Though, it actually reveals an interesting point about political power, and it shows just how useless and privileged the peace movement is. Unlike the peace movement, the gay rights movement never demobilized. They continued to build and exercise power to pressure the administration into doing stuff. The gay rights movement more or less (correctly) recognized that democracy is not just about voting -- it's about organizing for progressive change. The peace movement thought that the wars would end once Obama got elected. As a result, they largely gave up whatever leverage they had. Ivan Shitskin fucked around with this message at 15:29 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 09:21
|
|
|
AndItsAllGone posted:I think he's saying that a supermajority of Democrats in Washington support gay marriage. I'm not sure if that's accurate or not but that's my take on what gtrmp meant. gtrmp posted:Polling consistently shows that a supermajority of self-identified Democratic voters support same-sex marriage. Supermajority is a term with a specific meaning as it relates to a decision-making body. It doesn't make any sense to apply it to opinion polling. It's not an adjective + noun. It is its own compound noun with a specific meaning. The phrasing you were most likely looking for is "overwhelming majority." Unless someone can point me to a definition of "supermajority" I haven't read yet...it's kind of the way things are. I'm not denying that marriage equality is a majority position among Democrats. It's just that I think we shouldn't get carried away with ourselves. I will admit this is my own dumb language derail, and that other people probably don't care. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority ErIog fucked around with this message at 09:34 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 09:32
|
|
|
While not entirely equivalent to supporting the word marriage (as evidenced by Obama's support since 2011 not really mattering), 34 of 53 (64%) Senate Dems and 143 of 190 (75%) of House Dems support the Respect For Marriage Act/DOMA repeal. This bill does not alter the marriage laws of any state, other than removing DOMA's illegal subversion of the Constitutional requirement to recognize of out of state contracts which has encouraged states to do the same. If you are upset by Obama saying he supports the right of states to make marriage laws, please contact your representatives since there is no one in Washington working to federalize marriage laws. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 09:50 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 09:48
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:Polling consistently shows that a supermajority of self-identified Democratic voters support same-sex marriage. Gallup: 2010, 2011  Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx 2012  Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx Pew:  Source: http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/download.php So yes, a large majority of self-identified Democrats do support marriage equality, but this change in the balance has been fairly recent.   Overall, both of these polls show a majority/plurality of the country supports marriage equality, but again, this change in balance has been rapid and recent.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 10:28
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:Our super-LGBT-friendly president believes that we should leave gay marriage up to the states to decide - and 30 of those states have already banned same-sex marriage. Such a brave and nuanced position! Our super-lgbt-friendly President has been monumentally effective at getting concrete things done for LGBT equality. That he has not satisfied people whose idea of effective political tool is an angry tirade in every situation doesn't really change that. The state-by-state legalization, while attacking federal interference that attempts to block the steady progress is clearly the most effective way to go on the issue - so much so that there's many gay rights organizations that believe the federal constitutional challenge to Preposition 8 was a bad decision. The Obama Administration's position on repealing DOMA, then making changes state by state until there's a critical mass to force it on the rest of the nation is exactly in line with the mainstream thought in gay rights organizations. Again, it's not really satisfying to the angry tirade group, but it gets results. I mean the only argument that couldn't be laughed away for why you could attack the Obama Administration on gay rights just vanished. So now, we're left with this sort of cognitive dissonance-inspired flailing: people who simply don't want to admit they were wrong. It's also prompted by people who may have legitimate complaints about the Obama administration in other areas being unwilling to put in the effort to maintain a nuanced view and instead subscribe to the halo effect (something I like is good in all aspects, something I dislike is bad in all aspects).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 14:05
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:If it's such a big deal make a thread about it. I think both sections of DOMA are gone the first time the Supreme Court takes up the issue, which is likely to be the Gil v. OPM case currently in the 1st Circuit. Even though that case is only taking up Section 3, it's likely to be struck down on Equal Protection grounds. I can't think of a way for Section 2 to continue to stand in that case, since a denial to recognize a SSM marriage legally performed elsewhere while recognizing opposite-sex marriage is also an Equal Protection issue. I mean, you're right about the math concerning state laws, and that SCOTUS usually doesn't act to overturn laws enacted by a majority of cases. But everyone knows this comes down to how Kennedy feels, and he's been quite supportive of homosexual rights in the past.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The state-by-state legalization, while attacking federal interference that attempts to block the steady progress is clearly the most effective way to go on the issue That seems like an arguable contention, not something that would be "laughable" to disagree with. Why is that more effective than the president openly supporting new legislation at the federal level? I at least agree that this ranks low on the list of things to be pissed off about regarding Obama, since he certainly has made progress. ne plus ultra fucked around with this message at 15:14 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
Let's keep this thread to this one issue. No need bringing up drone strikes or other bullshit, this isn't the thread for that. If you absolutely have to tell the thread how much he still sucks even though he did this thing then please try to find another thread unless you want to talk about how much he sucks still when it comes to marriage equality, you're fine then.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 15:17
|
|
|
It's adorable that bill is being sponsored by Reed and Reid. They should start a detective agency together
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
ne plus ultra posted:That seems like an arguable contention, not something that would be "laughable" to disagree with. Why is that more effective than the president openly supporting new legislation at the federal level? You can certainly disagree on the tactics, but you can't really paint it, as gtrmp was trying to do, as some sort of covertly subversive position. Gay marriage is becoming an inevitability, but it's not there yet. The demographics are making a solid shift, but it's not yet at the point where you have the support to push it through everywhere. One of the most effective ways to change people's minds has been to simply show the sky does not fall when gays can get married. By moving state by state, proponents of marriage equality have been able to extend from Mass to most of the Northeast. There's always a backlash when it's first legalized - even Massachussets nearly had a referendum. That referendum got delayed a year by tactics the Mass Supreme Court eventually held were unconstitutional (though they also held there was nothing they could do about it), but by the time the vote actually happened in the legislature it failed to muster the 25% needed to send it to the ballot. Once you pass that backlash point though, things settle down and people realize none of the horror stories have happened. But we're still not at the point where you can jam it down the throats of the entire south: the point is to remove the federal laws like DOMA that discriminate, and keep turning up the temperature steadily until the lizard gets cooked. Plus the Administration does support legislation on a national level to repeal DOMA, and cause the Federal government to recognize all marriages that the state where someone lives in recognizes (edit: it seems I was wrong about the details of this, it's actually broader - the federal government will recognize any gay marriage that was valid where performed regardless of the state they live in now). Obama's support for the Respect for Marriage act can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/19/president-obama-supports-respect-marriage-act evilweasel fucked around with this message at 15:41 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 15:34
|
|
|
Riptor posted:It's adorable that bill is being sponsored by Reed and Reid. They should start a detective agency together Reed and Reid, professional non-bigots! Someone before asked about Reid's support of gay marriage, from what I recall the line he said about 'well as a Mormon I'm not super cool with it but as a lawmaker my faith can't dictate what I do' has been his position for, at the very least, a good while now. I have a lot of respect for him being honest that yes his faith does make him uncomfortable with it but understanding that he has to put that aside to legislate the nation as a whole, not just the Mormons. So, what is actually going to be in this Respect for Marriage or whatever bill, have they confirmed it's a DOMA repeal?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Reed and Reid, professional non-bigots! It's pretty simple: the Federal Government will recognize any marriage that was valid in the state it was conducted in, or if it was entered into outside of any state (i.e. a foreign country) then it will be considered valid if it could be validly entered into in any state. In other words, if you get married in Mass. and move to North Carolina, nobody's forcing the government of NC to recognize your marriage, but the Federal Government will. quote:SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 15:39
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:Our super-LGBT-friendly president believes that we should leave gay marriage up to the states to decide - and 30 of those states have already banned same-sex marriage. Such a brave and nuanced position! 
Crows Turn Off fucked around with this message at 16:47 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 16:45
|
|
Just saw this and wanted to post, cause it's a great lil graphic
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:He's actually done quite a bit for the LGBT community and it's kind of disheartening to see people think he's done nothing aside from repealing DADT and publicly supporting same-sex marriage (which are themselves actually pretty big deals). Are these really LGBT things? "Lifted the ban that prohibited people with HIV/AIDS from entering the United States." "Enacted the Affordable Care Act…"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Just saw this and wanted to post, cause it's a great lil graphic If I'm reading that right, does that mean that the greyed out blue squares (for example) mean that there's no specific condemnation or acceptance of LGBTs for adopting in the law?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Are these really LGBT things? Gay men still make up a disproportional amount of people with HIV, although that's in the US and I assume other first world nations, third world I would assume doesn't have the heterosexual/homosexual divide. As for ACA, not a clue. Although he also refused to sign an executive order written up by his staff to protect federal contract workers against gender discrimination after the failure of ENDA, though a court order last month basically did the same. quote:If I'm reading that right, does that mean that the greyed out blue squares (for example) mean that there's no specific condemnation or acceptance of LGBTs for adopting in the law? It allows for single parents, given every state appears to allow it it's making me think it's probably a federal law? But this does mean a homosexual couple can't adopt together as normal parents, only one of them will legally be the child's guardian, and god only knows what will happen if they find out even said single parent is in fact in some kind of gay relationship.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Are these really LGBT things? The health care bill is stretching, but the HIV ban was largely considered a gay rights issue because it was clearly enacted with a discriminatory intent (there's few similar bans, and at the time it was "the gay disease").
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If I'm reading that right, does that mean that the greyed out blue squares (for example) mean that there's no specific condemnation or acceptance of LGBTs for adopting in the law? The blue squares mean limited rights, the grey squares mean no law for or against. What that means it is defacto legal to discriminate in housing and employment. And congrats to PA for being the Alabama of the North East.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:Seeing as how Obama didn't close Guantanamo when he said he would, allowed the extension of the Patriot act and tax cuts for the rich, pre-emtively caved in and put out garbage healthcare "reform" that was basically written by the for-profit healthcare industry, still has troops in Afghanistan and is bombing the gently caress out of middle eastern countries with lol (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:And congrats to PA for being the Alabama of the North East. PA isn't really culturally part of the Northeast. There's Philadelphia, which you can argue is culturally like the northeast, but the rest is basically a midwestern state.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
I used to live in Philly, which is pretty liberal, but between Pittsburgh and Philly it's Pennsyltucky.
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Just saw this and wanted to post, cause it's a great lil graphic So loving pissed that mormons used all those "tax deductable charitable donations" to lie through their teeth and swing prop 8 to yes. CA should have that outer ring red, and will soon once the court cases get settled.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:PA isn't really culturally part of the Northeast. There's Philadelphia, which you can argue is culturally like the northeast, but the rest is basically a midwestern state. I live in PA, and yeah thats pretty much the case. The is actually a joke that PA consists of Philadelphia, Pittsburg, and Alabama in between. It really doesn't help when we elect idiots like Santorum and psychopaths like Corbett
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Just saw this and wanted to post, cause it's a great lil graphic http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2012/may/08/gay-rights-united-states
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer has weighed in on Obama's statement:quote:But there's one thing that I wish the president had done, which is to say which is now his side of the debate, show a little respect for the other side. Because as we saw with Prop 9, and other referendums on gay rights, those people who oppose gay marriage are demonized by the pro-side as bigots, as haters and often suffer boycotts and worse. Whereas I think he ought to say to the country, a difficult decision, each side ought to respect the other and not demonize them. But they ARE bigots, Charles. Would you not have people call a spade a spade? (Answer: Not when it's a bad label applied to Republicans!)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:PA isn't really culturally part of the Northeast. There's Philadelphia, which you can argue is culturally like the northeast, but the rest is basically a midwestern state. I find this useful to compare the progressiveness, it's a map for gender identity protections in employment:   You can clearly see a cultural divide in PA between the Pennslytucky types and the progressives.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:I live in PA, and yeah thats pretty much the case. The is actually a joke that PA consists of Philadelphia, Pittsburg, and Alabama in between. PA goon here and this is pretty much true. Obama even confirmed this during his 08 campaign with his "gun nuts and bibles" statement. I hate Pennsyltucky so much.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I find this useful to compare the progressiveness, it's a map for gender identity protections in employment: Bad, New York! That's a bad New York! You're supposed to be ahead on this poo poo. Do you want god drat Iowa to stay in the lead? Iowa?!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 20:42
|
|
