Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He promised to repeal DOMA. Its not giving people anything, its about removing restriction that DOMA applies.
Finally, I don't know whats so 'new' or 'unique' or 'dangerous' about this article other than the fact that Obama calls for repealing DOMA that was passed under Clinton adminstration.
He didn't promise 'special tax cuts for gays and neither did he promise them a million dollar I don't know why most of the comment give the impression that he is giving special privileges to the gays and lesbians?---------Am I reading a different article. ah?
The difference between Clinton and Obama position...
Both are aganist gay marriage. However,
Clinton doesn't support repealing the entire DOMA------hence no gay marriage right under any circumstance.
Obama doesn't support gay marriage but supports repealing DOMA entirely-----so if California has gay marriage for its citzen, other states have to respect it under the Full Faith and Credit Clause articles of the constitution. Of course he wants states to make the decision on the marriage issue, his position of repeal is frankly a indirect support for gay marriage and been a constitional lawyer he must know it. (Clever)
The operative word here being "Promise". There is no way that he will get DOMA repealed. Period. Since I assume you are not gay, you do not deal with issues of gay discrimination on a daily basis, so, I don't ecpect you to understand.
The fact is, he is still in favor of leaving it up to the staes to determine how to handle it, as does Hillary. Hillary is in favor of of providing Federal Benefits to gay couples. She feels that leaving DOMA in place but severly weakening it is the best way to go, and I agree with her.
If DOMA is removed completely, we'd then be faced with renewed calls from the right for a Constitutional amendment banning Gay marriage. I don't care one bit if "marriage" is determined to be between a man and a woman. "Traditional Marriage", as I have explained countless times, is a two-part arrangement. The first part is a "covenent" before God; The second part is a legally binding CIVIL contract that contains Federal benefits.
I only concern myself with the second part. Too many people in the Gay community spend way too much time arguing over semantics. I am in favor of civil unions under whatever name they choose to call them. It is my belief that Civil Unions can be pushed in such a way as to circumvent the whole "marriage" debacle.
Since each state has the right to deal with the issue on it's own under both of their proposals, it's irrelevant whether or not DOMA is repealed or not. The key wording is: "No state NEED recognize" It doesn't state that no state CAN recognize...
Hillary supports repealing #2 for states that do choose to recognize gay marriage or civil Unions.
I'm against putting people into boxes and groups. If it repeals the law, fine. I believe Hillary has a better record. I'm not voting for either of them.
Putting people into boxes? How? That is just because you assume that only gays care about whether gays have the right to marry or not. I am pretty sure you can find gays opposing gay marriage and straights opposing and supporting gay marriage.
Education issue isn't just important to students, it is also important to parent.
Since each state has the right to deal with the issue on it's own under both of their proposals, it's irrelevant whether or not DOMA is repealed or not. The key wording is: "No state NEED recognize" It doesn't state that no state CAN recognize...
DOMA was challanged in federal courts and the law was upheld. The argument doesn't work. DOMA case was refused by the supreme court time after time.
Last edited by jessica1000; 02-28-2008 at 04:13 PM..
It shows a lack of any objectivity remaining in your ability to use reason and fairness.
.
I think you are wrong here. Being a Gay American, I think that we are far more capable of grasping the issues of bigotry and discrimination that we face on a daily basis. Obama is merely attempting to use semantics to pander to the gay community. Nothing more, nothing less.
Let me first say that I certainly appreciate the fact that you are an open-minded individual on this issue and I appreciate your support for the gay community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessica1000
DOMA was challanged in federal courts and the law was upheld. The argument doesn't work. DOMA case was refused by the supreme court time after time.
So far, yes. Believe me, I'd like to see it totally removed, personally. However, I think that that is just not practical at this time and it will create more problems for us in than it would solve. This either demonstrates that he is either pandering simply to get votes or that he is naive enough to think he CAN get it repealed.
Take a look at the political landscape that we are facing on the issue: Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes restricting marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage." A small number of states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.
What makes you think that it is even a remote possibility that it can be repealed presently simply because Obama says so?
This is an issue that IS going to stay on the state level. All of the current candidates are not arguing with that, and there are some successes at the state level. Most notably:
DOMAwatch.org - Current Legal Challenges (http://www.domawatch.org/currentchallenges.html - broken link) Lewis v. Harris
Same-sex couples sued for the right to marry under the New Jersey Constitution.
Status: The trial judge granted summary judgment to the state on the ground that there is no fundamental right to same-sex “marriage,” and the marriage laws are not discriminatory. The appellate court affirmed, holding that New Jersey's definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman is constitutional.
On October 25, 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that even though there is no fundamental right to same-sex "marriage," defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, without providing an identical legal status for same-sex couples, violated the non-textual equal protection guarantee read into the New Jersey Constitution by the Court. The New Jersey high court ordered the state legislature to extend all rights and obligations of marriage under state law to same-sex couples, but left for the legislature the decision to call such legal status "marriage," "civil union," or something else. On December 21, 2006, New Jersey's governor signed civil unions legislation.
Take a look at the political landscape that we are facing on the issue: Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes restricting marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage." A small number of states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.
What makes you think that it is even a remote possibility that it can be repealed presently simply because Obama says so?
I live in California but I couldn't believe that the state of Oregon was one of those states which in 2004 banned gay marriage by a whopping 57%(you don't expect this crap in western states).
Of course, in california a anti-gay marriage ballot failed to get enough signatures in 2006(but I think california did pass something aganist gay marriage in 2002). A similiar anti-gay measure failed in Arizona too in 2006(by only 2%) and probably because of low conservative republican turnout.
If DOMA is removed completely, we'd then be faced with renewed calls from the right for a Constitutional amendment banning Gay marriage. I don't care one bit if "marriage" is determined to be between a man and a woman. "Traditional Marriage", as I have explained countless times, is a two-part arrangement. The first part is a "covenent" before God; The second part is a legally binding CIVIL contract that contains Federal benefits.
I only concern myself with the second part. Too many people in the Gay community spend way too much time arguing over semantics. I am in favor of civil unions under whatever name they choose to call them. It is my belief that Civil Unions can be pushed in such a way as to circumvent the whole "marriage" debacle.
I believe DOMA was passed to appease the Religious Right who were up at arms over the use of the word "marriage" which they feel is a biblical thing.
I totally agree about the rights and benefits issue and I think "civil unions" or whatever else they may want to call them (besides "marriage") is the best and easiest way to go.
Let the Religious Right claim the word marriage.
And yes, repealing DOMA is pandering to gays -- and don't think the members of the Religious Right won't see right through what Obama is saying (what someone else thought was clever). By pushing for the repeal of DOMA, Obama is stating that he is for gay marriage, whether he says it outright or not.
The Religious Right are so vocal, I can just see *this* and how many of them who voted for Obama because they thought he was a religious person -- well, I can just see how well this is going to play in their communities. I believe this is an excellent example of not having very good judgment.
What about these polygamists? I notice they were lumped in with the deal. I thought polygamy was already illegal in the US - why the need to throw that in the DOMA language? Is it a devious way to later on say they can't repeal it because it would allow polygamy??
I live in California but I couldn't believe that the state of Oregon was one of those states which in 2004 banned gay marriage by a whopping 57%(you don't expect this crap in western states).
Of course, in california a anti-gay marriage ballot failed to get enough signatures in 2006(but I think california did pass something aganist gay marriage in 2002). A similiar anti-gay measure failed in Arizona too in 2006(by only 2%) and probably because of low conservative republican turnout.
They tried one in Wa. state that failed to get enough signatures in 2006.
I live in California but I couldn't believe that the state of Oregon was one of those states which in 2004 banned gay marriage by a whopping 57%(you don't expect this crap in western states).
It's when I have to pay my taxes without being able to claim my partner and all the tax breaks associated with marriage. The only time gay Americans are valuable to this country is during tax season when they take our money and use it against us.
Actually, your circumstances are no different from us tax paying heterosexuals who have partners.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
