The first gay president

[Hurlshort]

 

A conversation on this was getting started in the funny things thread, so I thought it might be better of on its own. This Newsweek cover may be a bit sensationalist, but if you read the article that goes along with it, it is a very touching piece about how important Obama's stance is.

 

Gorgon wrote:

 

The lobby kinda forced him to 'come out' and make it official. Left to his own devices he would have done as little as he could get away with. Gay and lesbian rights is not a place to spend political capital but a good place to get it, from the purely pragmatic Democrat's POV.

 

I'm not a huge fan of Obama, I recognize he is still a politician, I haven't been overly impressed with his term. But he could have hedged here, taken a middle of the road stance like every other politician before him. Instead he did the right thing, and I applaud that. Whatever his motives are, it is a huge step to have the President support the equal rights of a minority group.

 

I just don't see a more important issue in our country than eliminating discrimination. It isn't a political issue at all, it is about human rights. Those who stand against giving equal rights to minorities never look good under the light of history.

 

Now I would love to see the Republic party leadership step up and join Obama in this statement against discrimination. I think they should, I know they have a good amount of people in the party that believe in it. But until they do, they are standing on the wrong side.

[Oner]

Doesn't he have a wife? Wouldn't that make him a bisexual?

[Malcador]

Not really sure what conversation you're expecting here, heh. If they do make it legal US-wide, better make sure gay divorce works, I think that was a weird sticky wicket up here in Canada.

[Rosbjerg]

So now he's the first gay-female-hispanic-asian-jewish president? He seems to be garnishing the titles.

 

Is it really true that he's the first president to truly cater to these groups needs? (the Jewish especially baffled me) - I get the gay vote, but female, jewish and hispanic?

[Hurlshort]

Doesn't he have a wife? Wouldn't that make him a bisexual?

 

Not sure if serious. The cover is really more of a play on words because he is the first American President to come out in support of gay marriage.

[Oner]

Doesn't he have a wife? Wouldn't that make him a bisexual?

 

Not sure if serious. The cover is really more of a play on words because he is the first American President to come out in support of gay marriage.

...That's not much of a play, just blatant misinformation.

[Gfted1]

The majority of Americans support homosexual civil unions, its when you have to call it "marriage" that things get all sideways. I can kind of see their point, civil unions provide all the same benefits of marriage yet thats not good enough and people have to push their agenda on others and try to usurp what is a religous ceremony.

[Hurlshort]

So now he's the first gay-female-hispanic-asian-jewish president? He seems to be garnishing the titles.

 

Is it really true that he's the first president to truly cater to these groups needs? (the Jewish especially baffled me) - I get the gay vote, but female, jewish and hispanic?

 

I'd say both parties are actively trying to represent the diversity of the country, and it clearly paid off in the Obama campaign 3 years ago. The problem for the Republican party is they have a decent sized constituency that wants nothing to do with diversity, and so they have to tread a lot more cautiously.

 

But even the Democrats have to do some work here. Obama had to get on the phone with a bunch of pastors to explain his stance here, because they can't afford to lose too many votes over this.

[Hurlshort]

Doesn't he have a wife? Wouldn't that make him a bisexual?

 

Not sure if serious. The cover is really more of a play on words because he is the first American President to come out in support of gay marriage.

...That's not much of a play, just blatant misinformation.

 

Only for someone that is completely misinformed to begin with. The cover isn't coming out of nowhere, it is clearly a response to his recent stance on gay marriage.

[Gorgon]

What I don't understand is why gays want anything to do with a religious ritual from a church which does not recognise their right to be together.

 

The word 'marriage' is not reserved exclusively for man+woman, that's a false argument. Does anyone here have any trouble with what the term 'gay marriage' means... I didn't think so.

Surely usage is the final arbiter of language. A segment of population want to claim it exclusively for a heterosexual union. That's really on them though.

[Gfted1]

What I don't understand is why gays want anything to do with a religious ritual from a church which does not recognise their right to be together.

 

I dont get it either.

 

The word 'marriage' is not reserved exclusively for man+woman, that's a false argument. Does anyone here have any trouble with what the term 'gay marriage' means... I didn't think so.

Surely usage is the final arbiter of language. A segment of population want to claim it exclusively for a heterosexual union. That's really on them though.

 

Well thats a bit of revisionist history there. "Marriage" as known in the West has always stood for man + woman. Only recently has it become a free-for-all. Hell, you can even "marry" dogs now.

[Hurlshort]

The majority of Americans support homosexual civil unions, its when you have to call it "marriage" that things get all sideways. I can kind of see their point, civil unions provide all the same benefits of marriage yet thats not good enough and people have to push their agenda on others and try to usurp what is a religous ceremony.

 

This argument reminds me of the whole segregation one out of the 50's. Minorities deserve public education, but they should have separate schools.

 

As long as the government is involved in marriage as an institution, they need to prevent discrimination. Marriage is not just a religious ceremony. Atheists can get married. There are theme chapels in Vegas. There are also quite a few churches that support gay rights, I attend one on occasion.

 

I would be fine with the government getting out of the wedding business entirely. If civil unions give the same rights and are available to all equally, I would happily accept that. But I don't see that happening anytime soon, so until then I say the government needs to do what it can to prevent discrimination.

[Gorgon]

So, isn't it really the segment that want to reserve it for man+woman who are trying to turn back the clock ?

Edited May 15, 2012 by Gorgon

[Hurlshort]

Yes. It's not like gay couples are suddenly interested in getting married, society has finally progressed far enough where they don't have to hide their relationships. My former principal is in his 60's and has been with his partner for 40 years. Why shouldn't the government recognize them legally as husband and husband?

 

Also with the adoption hurdles mostly cleared for gay couples, they are raising children. Again, why wouldn't the government recognize them like any other family?

 

The legislation that just passed in North Carolina didn't just strike down gay marriage, it struck down civil unions as well. We can't rely on majority votes and opinions any longer on this, the progress is too slow. Just like the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's, we need protection from the tyranny of the majority.

[Gorgon]

On a related note, they want Danish priests to come up with an alternate version of the ceremony for use by priests in gay marriages. They won't do it.

 

On the one hand gays pay part of the sallary of clergy in Denmark so they sort of have a right to demand services in return, on the other it's a religious tradition and thousands of years old. Shouldn't reform come from the inside rather than from activists on the outside.

[Calax]

What I don't understand is why gays want anything to do with a religious ritual from a church which does not recognise their right to be together.

 

I dont get it either.

 

The word 'marriage' is not reserved exclusively for man+woman, that's a false argument. Does anyone here have any trouble with what the term 'gay marriage' means... I didn't think so.

Surely usage is the final arbiter of language. A segment of population want to claim it exclusively for a heterosexual union. That's really on them though.

 

Well thats a bit of revisionist history there. "Marriage" as known in the West has always stood for man + woman. Only recently has it become a free-for-all. Hell, you can even "marry" dogs now.

It's not the desire for a religious institution or anything close to that. It's because the government took a religious institution and gave it financial and social implications beyond that which the church could give. The benefits and systems set up to feed off being married in the US are just way to beneficial for most to NOT get married to a person if they're that deep with each other.

 

There are examples where one partner is incapacitated and the parents become the guardians, and they hate the fact that their son is gay, so they go out of their way to ruin the relationship by denying the "awake" partner the ability to visit unconcious one, and even go so far as to bar him from a funeral. If they were married, under the law the partner would be the guardian in question, and main beneficiary.

 

As to Civil Unions vs Marriage, one issue that's been coming up is the fact that while Civil Unions offer many benefits... they are seriously more expensive than being married. One of the few things my Sociology teacher threw out on her tirades against inequalities.

[Oner]

Doesn't he have a wife? Wouldn't that make him a bisexual?

 

Not sure if serious. The cover is really more of a play on words because he is the first American President to come out in support of gay marriage.

...That's not much of a play, just blatant misinformation.

 

Only for someone that is completely misinformed to begin with. The cover isn't coming out of nowhere, it is clearly a response to his recent stance on gay marriage.

God forbid I may be looking to glean information from a news magazine!

[Monte Carlo]

Yes. It's not like gay couples are suddenly interested in getting married, society has finally progressed far enough where they don't have to hide their relationships. My former principal is in his 60's and has been with his partner for 40 years. Why shouldn't the government recognize them legally as husband and husband?

 

Er, because a marriage requires a husband and wife. Duh.

 

Sorry, but I'm a doughty defender of gay rights. I'm best man at a civil ceremony in the Summer. I'm also an atheist but I respect the religious aspect to marriage too (see what I did there?).

 

I see no contradiction in being pro-Gay rights and not supporting Gay 'marriage.'

 

As for Obama, meh. He talks the talk but will go down in history as a Jimmy-Carteresque lightweight.

[Gfted1]

As to Civil Unions vs Marriage, one issue that's been coming up is the fact that while Civil Unions offer many benefits... they are seriously more expensive than being married. One of the few things my Sociology teacher threw out on her tirades against inequalities.

 

And with that we know your teacher has never been married.

 

Seriously, I dont know the numbers but I would be shocked if a few thousand dollars in Power of Attorney fees came anywhere near the cost of a wedding.

[HoonDing]

I eagerly look forward to what the first Mormon president will come up with.

[C2B]

What I don't understand is why gays want anything to do with a religious ritual from a church which does not recognise their right to be together.

 

I dont get it either.

 

Because you CAN be gay and deeply christian.

 

Radical concepts I'm spouting, I know.

[Orogun01]

 

Er, because a marriage requires a husband and wife. Duh.

 

Sorry, but I'm a doughty defender of gay rights. I'm best man at a civil ceremony in the Summer. I'm also an atheist but I respect the religious aspect to marriage too (see what I did there?).

 

I see no contradiction in being pro-Gay rights and not supporting Gay 'marriage.'

 

As for Obama, meh. He talks the talk but will go down in history as a Jimmy-Carteresque lightweight.

Just for clarification, your stand against same sex marriage is because of legal complication or religious freedoms?

[Monte Carlo]

^ A bit of both I guess. If you take the position that marriage is existentially a union between a man and a woman then both come into play. Which I do. I am uncomfortable with forcing people with sincerely-held religious views to accommodate something that is already more than adequately covered by civil ceremonies. If people want to call that 'marriage' then the sky won't fall in.

 

There is no easy answer to this question. But I'm a bit pissed off at people trying to play the bigotry card at those of us who have a more nuanced position.

 

Men and women entering into a lifelong union and having children is a bizarre development in our story as a species. It's also been extremely successful. Why take it away for reasons of social engineering.

 

I'm sure Prez Obama has honestly held views on this one, but let's not kid ourselves the guy wants Hollywood dollars for the forthcoming campaign, and also wants to position himself against a dull white guy with unorthodox religious views. This is the gift that keeps on giving.

[Hurlshort]

What I don't understand is why gays want anything to do with a religious ritual from a church which does not recognise their right to be together.

 

I dont get it either.

 

Because you CAN be gay and deeply christian.

 

Radical concepts I'm spouting, I know.

 

Exactly. There is no shortage of churches accepting of gay members, by the way.

[Malcador]

Hm, sticky if you're trying to be within the Church though. Still, most people aren't referring to the sacrament, and I'd hope if it were legal, a church could tell a couple to pound sand and not get into trouble for it.