Topic: Gay Rights

[surfohio]

But he still thinks it is a state issue 

A states rights position? That just proves the President is a closet racist!!!!

[Hts121]

^Closet?  I thought we confirmed long ago that he hates whites and christians?  We thought he hates gays, but apparently not so much.....

[Jeffery]

Here is a poll from CNN that includes gay marriage.

Breakouts are interesting...the overwhelming support (60%!) in the West for this.   And there is more suburban (57%) support than urban (53%).

[shs96]

I liked how he called it the "Defense Against Marriage Act".

I can't get excited about this since his non-support always rang hollow, especially after stating support as long ago as 1996. I'm still annoyed that he waited until now to speak up. I guess I don't know how to feel about it. I mean, I wanted him to say it. Yet it is underwhelming that he waited until the start of the campaign for his second term to make the statement.

For someone I generally respect to play politics with an issue so important and personal for me feels icky and condescending. At least I won't have to hear some BS about "evolving" anymore. Finally. And it obviously it beats the alternative.

This issue offers insight into what it must feel like to be a Romney supporter: to have to contend with this "icky" feeling and condescension on each and every issue! What a nightmare that must be.

Kind of my view.  I mean, great that Obama came out in support of gay marriage!  Now only if there was someone that supported gay marriage who had the power to do something about it.

Oh, wait...

[Hts121]

Now only if there was someone that supported gay marriage who had the power to do something about it.

Oh, wait...

Huh?  Are you suggesting there is "someone" with such power.

The only unilateral action I have seen one way or the other is Christie's veto in NJ.

[Clevelander17]

Here is a poll from CNN that includes gay marriage.

Breakouts are interesting...the overwhelming support (60%!) in the West for this.   And there is more suburban (57%) support than urban (53%).

The South is the only region that opposes it.  And my guess about the urban numbers is that they are related to African-American Christianity which tends to overwhelmingly oppose homosexuality. 

[natininja]

Here is a poll from CNN that includes gay marriage.

Breakouts are interesting...the overwhelming support (60%!) in the West for this.   And there is more suburban (57%) support than urban (53%).

The most illuminating thing in that poll to me is that Tea Party supporters are much more likely to oppose legalizing marijuana than people who are neutral or opposed to the Tea Party. As clear an indication as I've seen that TPers are "statists".

[Civvik]

That CNN poll only reaffirms that old people swing votes on social issues wildly right of the actual population.

[Hts121]

NAACP backs same-sex marriage

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/19/naacp-backs-same-sex-marriage/?iref=allsearch

[natininja]

You know, I read this really insightful argument a few minutes ago, and I think I am starting to evolve on this whole marriage issue.

http://m.cincinnati.com/letters/article?a=43918&f=886

Wonder why this argument hasn't come up before. It's certainly quite persuasive, no?

Edit: Working link:
http://cincinnati.com/blogs/letters/2012/05/21/an-argument-against-gay-marriage/

[AJ93]

^You just want a beach vacation.

[Hts121]

There would be more than just a nice beach after they were gone......  You could surely count on some fabulously decorated cabanas as well

[shs96]

Now only if there was someone that supported gay marriage who had the power to do something about it.

Oh, wait...

Huh?  Are you suggesting there is "someone" with such power.

The only unilateral action I have seen one way or the other is Christie's veto in NJ.

Right, I forgot...Obama has no ability to influence policy in any way.

[Hts121]

^I suppose you're right.  All he has to do is pull a complete 180 and join forces with the wingnuts to condemn homosexuality, declare any homosexual acts as being an utter abomination, and state his intent to fight against any gay rights til the goodeth Lordeth returneth.  Then, 95% of the most ardent gay marriage opponents will be forced to reevaluate their position.  After all, I suspect they would rather stand with the gays (albeit not too close to prevent unwanted arousal) than with Barack HUSSEIN Obama.  It would at least be a worthy social experiment.

[TBideon]

It's an interesting thought. Do the wackos hate gays more than Obama. I'd say it's a toss up

[Hts121]

Some interesting results here.  Dramatic shift in support from blacks.  Also, it is noteworthy that support amongst people who know someone who is gay is much stronger than those who don't (or, probably more accurately, *think* they don't)..... and the number of people who do know someone (or at least acknowledge knowing someone) who is gay is rising.


Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition

Strong public support for same-sex marriage exceeds strong opposition by a significant margin for the first time in ABC News/Washington Post polls, and African-Americans have moved more in favor, perhaps taking their lead from Barack Obama on the issue.

Overall, 53 percent of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, steady the past year but up from 36 percent in just 2006. Thirty-nine percent "strongly" support it, while 32 percent are strongly opposed - the first time strong sentiment has tilted positive. Six years ago, by contrast, strong views on the issue were negative by a broad 27-point margin.

Further, this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that support for gay marriage has reached a new high among African-Americans in ABC/Post polls, up from four in 10 in recent surveys to 59 percent now.

Another result shows increasing exposure: Seventy-one percent of Americans now say they have a friend, family member or acquaintance who's gay, up from 59 percent in 1998. People who know someone who's gay are 20 points more likely than others to support gay marriage.

http://news.yahoo.com/strong-support-gay-marriage-now-exceeds-strong-opposition-040227742--abc-news-politics.html

LINK TO FULL POLL RESULTS - http://news.yahoo.com/strong-support-gay-marriage-now-exceeds-strong-opposition-040227742--abc-news-politics.html

[tedolph]

It's an interesting thought. Do the wackos hate gays more than Obama. I'd say it's a toss up

As a certified card carrying wacko, I would say we hate Obama more.


As I have said before, Gays are irrelevant to most of us.

Tedolph

[Hts121]

I have a hunch that gays are A-O.K with being irrelevant to most of the wackos.

[MyTwoSense]

It's an interesting thought. Do the wackos hate gays more than Obama. I'd say it's a toss up

As a certified card carrying wacko, I would say we hate Obama more.


As I have said before, Gays are irrelevant to most of us.

Tedolph

As a human being, that is offensive and idiotic!  No person should feel, be made to feel or perceived as they are irrelevant!

[Civvik]

^You just want a beach vacation.

LOL

[Civvik]

From electoral-vote.com:


Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Collapses     

Joe Biden's announcement that he was OK with same-sex marriage may have pushed President Obama into seconding the motion a bit earlier than he had planned, but it doesn't appear to be hurting him politically. An NBC/WSJ poll shows that 17% of the voters are more likely to vote for Obama as a consequence of his announcement vs. 20% who are more likely to vote for Romney. Furthermore, Obama's announcement is driving public opinion. A new WaPo/ABC News poll shows that 53% of Americans now think same-sex marriage should be legal while only 39% now say it should be illegal. This is the lowest rate of disapproval ever recorded.

What is truly amazing is that to a large extent, Bush's Brain, Karl Rove, made the Republican opposition to gay marriage one of the pillars of the 2000 and 2004 campaigns. That was not so long ago and now the Republicans are completely silent on the issue. After Obama gave his interview, no high-profile Republican went on the air to denounce him. The electoral potency of the issue is completely gone, and in a historically short time.

[Hts121]

When it comes about, Scalia and Thomas' dissent will be an interesting read.  Me thinks the 1st Circuit just walked them right into a trap...

Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, federal appeals court rules

On Thursday, a federal appeals court in Boston ruled that the government's ban on gay marriage, called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), violates the Constitution and should be struck down.

If the Supreme Court hears the case and upholds this ruling, it means that the federal government would most likely have to recognize the marriages of gay couples who were wed and reside in the six states that allow same-sex unions.

The First Circuit Court found that the federal government does not have a right to interfere in states' definition of marriage, but stopped short of arguing that gay people have a constitutionally protected right to legal marriage. The First Circuit court is the first federal appeals court to strike down the law, and the case is likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court next year.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/defense-marriage-act-unconstitutional-federal-appeals-court-rules-175257996.html

[Keith]

I don't know, Thomas is enough of a libertarian that there's a slight chance he might go along with the liberals on this one. Scalia is safely conservative though.

[TBideon]

Considering Herr Scalia was, and frankly still is, vehemently opposed to gays being allowed to have sex legally (read his just "brilliant" Lawrence v Texas dissent), then I think it's safe to say he's an braindead sack of $hit who should be recused involuntarily.

[Hts121]

^^Although he....ummmm...... 'creatively' reached his decision, Thomas did indeed dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.  That was a real shocker (sarcasm intended).  I don't see how any legitimate Libertarian could do so under those circumstances.

[surfohio]

I don't know, Thomas is enough of a libertarian that there's a slight chance he might go along with the liberals on this one. Scalia is safely conservative though.

I personally adhere to the Thomas dissent in the Lawrence case.

Dissent (Thomas)

If I were a member of the Texas Legislature I would vote to repeal this law. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources. But I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty is to decide cases agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I can find neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a general right of privacy, or as the Court terms it today, the liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.

[TBideon]

With that logic he's fine with states banning contraception and interracial marriages too. The guy is a loon with no respect for common sense, evolving cultures, and Supreme Court decisions pertaining to privacy matters.

[surfohio]

With that logic he's fine with states banning contraception and interracial marriages too. The guy is a loon with no respect for common sense, evolving cultures, and Supreme Court decisions pertaining to privacy matters.

Not "fine" with it. The logic behind it is judicial restraint. From a judges standpoint, it doesn't mean that he or she is endorsing a "bad" state law. Only that the proper means of disposing of that bad law is through the legislative process.

[Clevelander17]

I don't know, Thomas is enough of a libertarian that there's a slight chance he might go along with the liberals on this one. Scalia is safely conservative though.

I don't think Thomas is a libertarian at all.  From everything I've read and heard, he's as much of an activist conservative justice as anyone currently on the court.  Just because he famously doesn't ask questions and often takes the role of a follower/nitwit, doesn't mean that he's not dead-red conservative.

[Clevelander17]

With that logic he's fine with states banning contraception and interracial marriages too. The guy is a loon with no respect for common sense, evolving cultures, and Supreme Court decisions pertaining to privacy matters.

Not "fine" with it. The logic behind it is judicial restraint. From a judges standpoint, it doesn't mean that he or she is endorsing a "bad" state law. Only that the proper means of disposing of that bad law is through the legislative process.

The problem is that he and the other conservatives on the bench only use judicial restraint in a manner that preserves conservative ideals.  Reading about the Citizens United vs. FEC case that, with a helping hand from Roberts and Kennedy, went from a limited case about election material in movies to a widespread declaration of corporations' ability to give campaign donations, ignoring numerous precedents along the way, and you'll see that these jokers only use "judicial restraint" when it suits the agenda they're trying to push.  I have little doubt that in cases of gay rights like the one that they'll see next year, they will use and twist the Constitution in whatever manner they can to stifle progress and freedom. 

As a side note, maybe we need a Supreme Court thread to discuss cases and outcomes?

[Keith]

I should clarify that by libertarian I meant that there is a chance that he feels the federal government should mind its own business and stay out of states rights. (I'm aware that libertarian is the wrong word there, but I'm using the word that he has used to describe himself.) With that in mind I think there is a chance that he'll go along with the idea that if MA or VT or whereever says that two men (or women) are married, the federal government should accept the state's definition of marriage and not seek to define what should be (in his opinion) a state issue.

As a side note, maybe we need a Supreme Court thread to discuss cases and outcomes?

As long as we're discussing cases dealing with gay rights, why not leave the discussion here?

[Clevelander17]

As long as we're discussing cases dealing with gay rights, why not leave the discussion here?

Yeah, but I'm just anticipating the need to discuss some of the important looming Supreme Court decisions.

[Hts121]

I personally adhere to the Thomas dissent in the Lawrence case.

If you do, then you must also believe it would be costitutional, even if horrible policy, for Texas to ban nonmarital sexual relations?  Or interracial sexual relations?  Or what about a law banning contraceptives?  Or a law requiring contraceptives in all sexual relations, married or not?  If there is no right to privacy, then the government would have much greater reign over our personal choices.  If you are not a strong advocate for the right to privacy, not simply a legislative grant of privacy, then you are not a true libertarian.  (Yes, I know several conservative leaning libertarian groups would disagree with that).

[TBideon]

I'm still waiting to find out if Scalia sodomizes his wife. If he feels that states can ban homosexual conduct and contact, then mr privacy-does-not-exist-constititionally should have grown a pair and answer the kid's question.

[surfohio]

I personally adhere to the Thomas dissent in the Lawrence case.

If you do, then you must also believe it would be costitutional, even if horrible policy, for Texas to ban nonmarital sexual relations?  Or interracial sexual relations?  Or what about a law banning contraceptives?  Or a law requiring contraceptives in all sexual relations, married or not?  If there is no right to privacy, then the government would have much greater reign over our personal choices.  If you are not a strong advocate for the right to privacy, not simply a legislative grant of privacy, then you are not a true libertarian.  (Yes, I know several conservative leaning libertarian groups would disagree with that).

The Constitution isn't written in stone. I want all of those privacy rights enumerated in plain english through the amendment process.

But, for some reason we like to forget we can do this. Wouldn't you agree that this would be the best result?