Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
After a federal judge overturned California's ban on same-sex marriage yesterday, the White House told the Advocate, "The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans."
Does that strike anyone as equality but not equality? Today on MSNBC, David Axelrod tried to explain President Obama's position. "The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control," Axelrod said.
Andrew Sullivan pounced, saying that Alexrod didn't give a real reason for the president's opposition to marriage rights. Sullivan's take:
[T]he real argument would be: a) I'm too afraid of the culture war to take a stand; or b) I find the notion of two women getting married icky; or c) unlike my former congregation and whole swathes of American Christianity, my religious viewpoint demands that gay people be separated from the institution of civil marriage because it offends religious sensibilities. So which is it, Mr President? Are you really for equality or not?
We'll have much more on this tonight on the show.
Leave a Comment:
how bout this reason? lets not hand the wingnuts another issue to foam the base with BEFORE november.
If Obama had his way, Teh Gehys would get really awesome water fountains to drink from as well as separate but fabulously well appointed waiting rooms at bus stations.
Loving this, Kevin.
Why does the President oppose same sex marriage? Why does he oppose marriage equality? I don't understand. I am heterosexual, I am married, and I very much am in support of marriage among all people. One person at a time. This doesn't lead us to any kind of weirdness. I just don't understand his position and it bothers me that any person who claims they believe in equality can oppose same sex marriage. Figure it out. They are the same thing. You are playing both sides of the fence. A civil union is not a marriage - if it was, we wouldn't need it. I am offended by a law called the "defense of marriage act" and am offended by these wedge issue politics that are inserted into our political system only to bring out the crazies in close election years.
You can't really believe he is against gay marriage it was a vote getting thing to say the same as him trying to protect the hispanic vote, the black vote, etc... or just another socialist seeking social justice not just justice.
As a Federal employee, legally married in California in 2008, I can say for sure that it has not "been effectuated in agencies under his [O'Bama's] control." My wife has no health insurance though if I had married a man, my husband most certainly would have it as well as a bunch of other benefits. We file taxes as single even though we are legally married and our marriage is recognized in the state in which we live.
An executive order allowing full health coverage for same sex unions is beyond his authority. The Defense of Marriage Act does not allow same sex marriages to be recognized by the federal government and would have to be changed by congress.
Orrrr... either way, there may never be a time as these next few years when the capability and honor of the current bench of Supreme Court Justices shall be so thoroughly scrutinized by professional texts of the future. What will each of their names be synonymous with, I wonder?
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’ s right to freedom.
In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.
“We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” - Chief Justice John Marshall
[The foregoing (excerpts) was taken from a booklet prepared by the Supreme Court of the United States, and published with funding from the Supreme Court Historical Society.]
usgovinfo
Sorry Char, I just hate to read alone.
My guess is as solid as Walker's ruling is (bless him), some in the Supreme Court will bend over and buckle under a national conservatives' feigned last stand and will choose not to hear a further appeal, allowing a single state ruling to stand as is.
I guarantee, they're going through silent torture on what to do. :)
This is one thing I'm really disappointed with Obama about! He's never supported gay marriage and it looks like he won't take this opportunity to change his mind. He should take a stand!
Alas, he HAS taken a stand. Too bad, that.
@ohioorrin sad but all too true; can you imagine scary barbie writing all the bad things about teh gay on her palm...full disclosure i am a straight, but not narrow, married woman living in the city, you know civilization or as the wing refers to it, elitist Gomorrah...
Rachel Maddow reminds me of Sean Hannity, only flipped sides. Both of them argue for arguments sake. Neither of them really care about the state of our union. Both would take partisan sides whether they feel the issue is correct or not. People like these two have infiltrated our government and set our country awry by doing what is in their personal interests rather than doing what is best for the country. There will always be opinions, but the fact that neither side will concede or debate for one second just ruins the institution of America. I hope Maddow, Franken, Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck burn hard. You all suck.
You would have more credibility if you actually watched Rachel Maddow. She is the first one to want to debate an issue. People with the opposite view are afraid to go on her show because they know she is going to TRULY force you to defend your thoughts and arguments. This is what sent Ron Paul home crying. As she once stated in one of her shows about Sharon Angle or Ron Paul I think, "Debate and challenge back and forth is what forces you to really analyze your position. The constant debate and analysis really either strengthens your position because you develop a better understanding of any holes if your argument. You either fill those holes with more knowledge and research strengthening your position or you realize that your position really does not stand up against debate." I put these in quotes but this is in no way shape or form a correct quote, but it is the gist of what she said...
The only thing wrong with America, and democracy in general, is that people like you think civil liberties are only good for America when those liberties are exercised in your own image. I, for one, agree with Ms. Maddow's views with a sincere heart and and a rational mind. I see most of her views as "best" by far for the state of our union. You have every right to disagree but you have no right to second guess the motives of others who may honestly disagree with your definition of what's "best for the country."
Anthony here's a quarter , hop on down to the store and buy yourself a clue. What Rachael does is not argument for argument's sake. This is not a word game with her, its not acedemic or a game of "let's pretend." As a lesbian, this issue affects her directly and intimately. Secondly, she has never hesitated to step FAR outside her comfort zone and even put herself in harms way for the story, for our right to know (breathing in crude oil and dispersant fumes in the Gulf, interviewing soldiers in the backing heat of Afgahnistan a few miles from the fighting.)
Meanwhile Hannity had said that waterboarding wasn't torture and that he'd be willing to be waterboarded himself to prove it. He never did. To far outside his comfort zone.
How dare you compare Maddow to a coward like Hannity.
Rachel has not infiltrated government. She is not running for anything. Ever.
Yes she has Mech. She suffers from teh gay and teh progressive so by default, with Obama's election, her magical powers transferred to Obama *nods*. Don't you watch Faux News ever? =D
U.S. To Train 3,000 Offshore IT Workers
Federally-backed program aims to help outsourcers in South Asia become more fluent in areas like Java programming—and the English language.
August 3, 2010 01:59 PM
Despite President Obama's pledge to retain more hi-tech jobs in the U.S., a federal agency run by a hand-picked Obama appointee has launched a $36 million program to train workers, including 3,000 specialists in IT and related functions, in South Asia.
USAID is contributing about $10 million to the effort, while its private partners are investing roughly $26 million.
"To help fill workforce gaps in BPO and IT, USAID is teaming up with leading BPO and IT/English language training companies to establish professional IT and English skills development training centers," the U.S. Embassy in Colombo, Sri Lanka, said in a statement posted Friday on its Web site.
"Courses in Business Process Outsourcing, Enterprise Java, and English Language Skills will be offered at no charge to over 3,000 under- and unemployed students who will then participate in on-the-job training schemes with private firms," the embassy said.
USAID is also partnering with Sri Lankan companies in other industries, including construction and garment manufacturing, to help create 10,000 new jobs in the country, which is still recovering from a 30-year civil war that ended in 2009.
But it's the outsourcing program that's sure to draw the most fire from critics. While Obama acknowledged that occupations such as garment making don't add much value to the U.S. economy, he argued relentlessly during his presidential run that lawmakers needed to do more to keep hi-tech jobs in IT, biological sciences, and green energy in the country.
He also accused the Bush administration of creating tax loopholes that made it easier for U.S. companies to place work offshore in low-cost countries.
As recently as Monday, Obama, speaking at a Democratic fundraiser in Atlanta, boasted about his efforts to reduce offshoring. The President said he's implemented "a plan that’s focused on making our middle class more secure and our country more competitive in the long run -- so that the jobs and industries of the future aren’t all going to China and India, but are being created right here in the United States of America."
Obama in January tapped Shah to head USAID. At the time of his appointment, Shah—whose experience in the development community included senior positions at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—said the organization needed to focus more on helping developing nations build technology-based economies. "We need to develop new capabilities to pursue innovation, science, and technology," said Shah, during his swearing in ceremony.
Life is upside down in the White House
Obama on civil unions.
Separation of church and state?
Separate but equal~civil unions vs. marriage equality?
http://www.logotv.com/video/misc/167938/barack-obama-explains-his-stance-on-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions-barack-obama-part-4-visible-vote-08.jhtml?id=1595149
Obama on LGBT issues
http://www.logotv.com/video/misc/167944/barack-obama-discusses-the-importance-of-unity-barack-obama-part-6-visible-vote-08.jhtml?id=1595149
And...
http://www.logotv.com/video/misc/167948/barack-obama-discusses-the-gay-relevance-to-the-civil-rights-movement-barack-obama-part-1-visible-vote-08.jhtml?id=1595149
Hillary Clinton:
http://www.logotv.com/video/misc/168003/hillary-clinton-gets-grilled-on-gay-marriage-hillary-clinton-part-4-visible-vote-08.jhtml?id=1595149
Comic relief:
Alex Mapa (Shh....he has "the gay" too)
http://www.logotv.com/video/misc/168057/comedian-alec-mapa-offers-his-hilarious-take-on-the-presidential-forum-aftershow-bonus-video-audience-response.jhtml?id=1595149
Looking forward to the show.
Voter with "The Gay"
Dear Ms. Maddow,
While again watching the talking heads debate the merits of a majority vote on gay marriage, I realized these folks are never going to come to terms on this wedge issue. But it occurred to me, what if they don't have to? My thought is that there may be a third handle on this issue that we are missing. The one question I keep asking myself and others:
Why have we saddled our government with the burden of defining "marriage" in the first place? Do we really need a single, universal definition? Does that make any sense?
I realize there are certain civic rights and responsibilities that we as a people recognize when two people commit to each other before their peers. But is it really in the scope of our government's authority to decide what constitutes this inherently spiritual and/or religious institution? Did our Founders not clearly segregate the responsibilities of government and religion in the First Amendment?
What I am proposing is that we relieve our government of this predicament by converting all future marriage licenses to "civil unions." Let a couple's own church deem whether they are suitable to be "married" (or divorced) in the eyes of their particular faith. Thus, every "union" between two people may be equally recognized in public affairs, while still allowing each religion the diversity and dignity of defining "marriage" among its own followers.
I absolutely support the District Court's recent opinion concerning Prop. 8 -- I am just looking for a sensible compromise that respects both sides of the argument.
I just feel that we, as Americans (yes, we are indeed all on the same team!) need to come to terms with these cultural issues so that we can get down to brass tacks on the real problems facing our country.
That's just my humble opinion, but what do I know? Thanks so much for your time and keep up the solid reporting Rachel (and crew).
Sincerely,
Michael J. Proctor
American Citizen &
TRMS Viewer
It is a thousand times harder to get straight people to give up marriage than it is to extend marriage rights to gay people.
You claim that marriage is inherently spiritual and/or religious, but the fact of the matter is that the state instituted marriage, not religion. Religion just jumped on the bandwagon to lend spiritual legitimacy to it. The state instituted marriage in order to provide the legal structures needed to determine legitimacy of children and the inheritance of property.
If you want to make truly separate institutions, the state should keep "marriage" and the churches should bless holy unions, or sacred matrimony.
I like both of your points, GrrrlRomeo and John. Like I said, I don't have the answers. I'm really for equality here while keeping the door open for diversity in the definition of the terms. Again, I absolutely applaud the judge's well crafted decision in the Prop 8 case.
But I might dispute the historical age of the organized government or state, John. Many thousands of years ago, before the birth of the agricultural revolution, people existed in tribes -- not cities, or states, or countries governed by written law. These tribes varied greatly in culture and beliefs (spiritual, religious, practical), yet were able to respect each other and coexist (each within their own physical and cultural territory) without meddling in each others' affairs.
We too are a collection of different cultures in this country of ours. By allowing our federal, state, or local governments to sidestep this sticky business of defining marriage -- while still protecting and ensuring equal rights to the fruits of the institution among all -- we allow a greater tolerance and grace among our communities and each other.
My point in all this is to allow both sides of this argument to have their cake and eat it too.....
John, I believe you when you say you are for equality. It's just that, well what you're suggesting really isn't a compromise. A compromise would be allowing gays to enter into the civil contract that is known as marriage. That way straight people can still get married as well as gay people. Doing away with marriage as a civil institution would punish everyone--gay or straight--who isn't religious.
To be clear, when we talk about civil marriage we're talking about laws that allow parents to have custody of their children and share financial responsibilities among other things...and these are things that involve government. When people get divorced they go to court. When parents adopt, they go to court. When we do our taxes we send it to the IRS.
We're not talking about ceremonial marriage that joins two souls in holy matrimony. Religion is optional and is only ever involved in the business of marriage during a wedding ceremony. Churches have always had the right to decline to perform a marriage ceremony. Gay marriage doesn't change that.
I believe I was responsible for those comments you referred to, as a response to those from John's.
Please forgive any tone of condescension here, but what I am looking for is a healthy compromise that both sides can agree on.
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: 1com·pro·mise
Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-prə-ˌmīz\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, mutual promise to abide by an arbiter's decision, from Anglo-French compromisse, from Latin compromissum, from neuter of compromissus, past participle of compromittere to promise mutually, from com- + promittere to promise — more at promise
Date: 15th century
1 a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
I am using the first definition of the word in this case.
Neither side will be happy with a perceived "victory" by the other. What I am proposing here is effectively a cease-fire, a mutually agreed upon end to this battle. I suggest we place the term "marriage" into a sort of demilitarized zone, not to be used by either side in any official, legal setting pertaining to government.
We would agree to do this to allow each side to save face, in the interest of moving on together as a common people....
Putting the term marriage aside would not do justice to our cause and case for equality. We deserve, in fact, it is our inalienable right, to get married in every way: civil, legal, religious, symbolic, and emotional. We have been denied our equal rights in all of those ways. We are not taking anything from the definition, nor from the people who already enjoy these rights. Nothing will change for those people who are already married. Nothing at all. If you think our marriages "demean" your marriages, then that is simply prejudiced. We only want to recover, what is already ours.
Oh, I see Michael. Sorry, got your name wrong. I believe you're approaching this problem under the assumption that gays are on equal footing. The problem is, if we were on equal footing we wouldn't be having this conversation. This isn't a bargaining between two equal parties.
Conservatives started this fight when they created DOMA. They continued this fight when they put gay marriage bans on state ballots just to get conservatives to the polls. And they continued to beat the gays down when they introduced an amendment to the US Constitution in congress to keep the gays from getting married just so they could have something to stump on. So if you want a cease fire, you're going to have to go ask the people doing the firing.
Doing away with marriage is more of a way for the timid center to save face. A way of denying gays of a right without looking bad. And giving ALL the power to Churches to define marriage to boot. C'mon...it's not 1993. You can't sell us another "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and tell us it was a compromise.
Gay people are just fed up with getting kicked around by conservatives while progressives stand on the sidelines and watch. No deal. Especially now.
I think the word "marriage" does have religious connotations, without which the issue of "gay marriage" might not exist. I like the idea of increasing the separation of church and state by using the words "civil union" or "domestic partnership" to describe the purely legal relationship of marriage. It should be a secular contract, nothing more. Beyond that, "marriage" should refer to nothing but a ceremony that may or may not be held to celebrate the union. That ceremony should have no legal force, and it may be of any kind that the participants wish, whether in a church with a minister or a private gathering of some sort. The religious meaning, if any, is a private matter of the people involved. It should also be a matter of separation of church and state that no religion can be compelled to "bless" a marriage. If Catholics aren't ready for "gay marriage", and you are a gayCatholic who wants to get married (God knows why) consider becoming an Episcopalean.
I agree with you GrrrlRomeo, absolutely, no deals. Any "compromise" that accepted anything other than full marriage as it is framed for others in society, whether by religion, law, society, or emotional symbolism, would be accepting a lot less than what we are fully due, as our inalienable rights, protected under "equal protection of the law."
I don't get it. One of the smartest, most supportive presidents ever. He is a great guy, actually being smart. But, because he isn't a democrat version of W. people bitch. Really!?! Obama is doing a great job. And trust me, the alternative is not a more liberal president, but, a consevatard.
To anthony123: how exactly does gay marriage "ruin the institutions of America?" Just wondering? Your rant actually made no sense, so maybe that's just the way it's going to be.
Like I have said many times in the past, if you feel your marriage will be damaged by a same-sex couple getting married, then your marriage already has some very deep problems.
I don't agree with anthony123 in the slightest, but I must point out that he was not at all arguing about same sec marriage, either for or against. Go back and read him again. Or, you know, not. <g>
I just hope that this president can stand up for this, instead of trying to split everything down the middle. You do not have to have a religion to be married, so that is where I would disagree with Michael Proctor, respectfully. There should not be religion in marriage, or in government, and visa versa; you will never get the right to go for straight civil unions. I am at the point, and I am hetero, where I don't care if people don't like gay marriage or not; you cannot legislate human rights, and you cannot vote on human rights, period. The president needs to stand up and say how he feels, but don't play both sides of the aisle. Although, he is personally allowed to say that he does not like gay marriage, he can stand up and say that it is the right thing to do!
I totally agree with the idea that one should not require a religion (or be spiritually inclined) to be "married."
My point in this discussion is to let each consenting couple (or poly-union, if that's your choice) choose the terms and nature of their joining together. By allowing the government to grant equal rights under this "joining" without assigning it a specific title, we let the couple -- and/or their sponsoring beliefs or institution -- celebrate their own concepts, beliefs, ideas of this fellowship.
Everyone seems to be caught up in the word "marriage." I agree that if our government is sponsoring a "marriage" between a man and a woman, then it should absolutely grant the exact same "marriage" between two men or two women. By allowing our government to decline to define these terms altogether, we leave individuals to choose for themselves the terms and definitions.
But as a matter of tolerance, if the people of the Catholic church (an association of people extraneous to government) decide for themselves what marriage is to them, I have no interest in arguing with them. If I disagree, I will choose to not associate with that institution. If I myself were interested in entering into a same-sex partnership (I'm purposely trying to vary the vocabulary on this issue), and were looking for affirmation of this unification from a source outside our government, I would probably look to an institution that is accepting of my beliefs.
I am actually on the side of the recent court victory here, and I personally have no ties to any established religion. I am only attempting to provide each side the dignity of their own beliefs while sustaining equal rights for all.
In the words of the great author Daniel Quinn (Ishmael):
"There is no one right way to live."
We should leave it up to each individual to choose their lifestyle, and not allow the one institution that we all have in common to define this for us.....
Celebrate victory, but prepare for the worst:
http://www.deciminyan.org/2010/08/celebrate-victory-but-prepare-for-worst.html
It's not just Obama. There's a Democratic base that is afraid that if gays are allowed to get married it's going somehow affect their children.
A study of the Prop 8 campaign has been released. (Yeah, another one, but this one is the most thorough I've seen.) http://prop8report.lgbtmentoring.org/ And it shows that large numbers of white Democrats moved away from marriage equality.
There's people we had no chance of moving. We didn't have enough time. But there were people on our side that were easily spooked, and some of them were Democrats.
If we win in the Supreme Court, we may never have to do a marriage campaign again. But this issue is going to be used in election campaigns. If the Democratic Party doesn't change their rhetoric on gay marriage, it's going to leave a stain. Some day it's going to be used against them.
There have always been a large number of conservative Democrats, particularly in the South. Oh, just remembered: Dixiecrats! That's what they call them. But I did see a clip on msnbc that showed David Gregory talking about the SCOTUS and Prop 8. Seems that while they are majority conservative, there are a number who view this as a valid equal rights issue. They may surprise us! My father, a Rush Limbaugh viewer, has always argued on my behalf, as well as other marginalized groups like African Americans.
Dixiecrats aren't around anymore. They were registered Democrats in the south from the days of segregation. They may have voted for Clinton in the 1990s, but there wouldn't be any alive anymore.
Conservative Democrats of today are typically called Blue Dog Democrats.
Well I've seen the term still used here, but what do you think of Gregory's analysis of the Supreme Court and Prop 8 ruling?
I've heard a lot of predictions on SCOTUS regarding Prop 8...but not Gregory.
SCOTUS isn't like the electorate or congress. And there are only 9 justices. It's likely going to come down to a 5-4 vote.
My guess is Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas will vote to uphold Prop 8. Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor will vote to overturn it. Those I feel sure of. We haven't actually seen how Kagan will vote, but I'm guessing she'll be liberal. Kennedy is the one they're going to try and win over.
It depends on how they argue the case and if gays pass the suspect classification test.
I would say that SCOTUS and the appellate courts generally try to stay within the scope of the specific case at hand; they will avoid overruling the lower courts' opinions whenever plausible -- especially when a clear a decision as Judge Walker's was made concerning the discrimination in the Prop. 8 case.
My prediction is that, should the case be heard by The Supreme Court, it will be closer to a 7-2, 8-1, or even a 9-0 decision to uphold Judge Walker's ruling.
If I were a betting man, I would put my money on Alito and Thomas going with a dissenting opinion, perhaps based on some perceived bias on Judge Walker's part. Despite the politics involved, I don't think a Constitutional originalist could deny the Fourteenth Amendment. Scalia and Roberts have too much vested in their faith of our Constitution to deny equal rights in this case.
Scalia doesn't think gays are a suspect class and said as much in his Lawrence v Texas dissent.
If the court decides gays aren't a suspect class, the 14 Amendment doesn't apply.
@ Mr. Proctor --
Extraordinarily well said. I concur. Let churches sanction and officiate over 'marriages' - however they choose to define that and let all government entities treat all households as contractual agreements - granting all rights and privileges in a gender-blind manner.
I've often argued that any group should be able to contractually define their own household and 'head' of that household without regard to sexual preference or even sexual activity. If I choose to support a friend or sibling, for example, I should be able to define that as a 'household' and legally designate that friend as my 'next of kin' by choice and by contract with all the rights and benefits the government currently reserves for 'married' couples. Take the irrational and irrelevant moral overtones out of the debate, annihilate the concept of marriage in all civil proceedings and there's nothing left to argue about. I realize this concept has vast implications in the details of implementation - but still, as a concept, I agree that the state has no more business defining 'marriage' than they have defining a state sanctioned religion.
Patrick Keller
A strong supporter of the court's ruling and a huge Maddow fan.
Thanks Patrick, I really think everyone involved here has more in common than not.....I've added a few replies to the other responses above that I hope are fair.
I believe there are those in this country who have a vested interest in keeping the masses focused on these wedge issues, distracted from the greater problems we face.
civil unions are just like marriages... seperate but equal...
i can think of a few hundred things wrong with the term "seperate but equal"... white water fountains and black water fountains= seperate but equal.
America is TOO good to go back to that seperate but equal crap again.
One must understand, and I know it is difficult to do, that the majority of the nation does not hate gays. The majority in California who voted for Prop 8 are not anti-gay and do believe in justice and equality. Drumming up such rhetoric with unjustified and inaccurate demonizing does more harm for the cause than good, because it portrays advocates as irrational zealots. The vast majority of Americans believe in God. Whether they practice religion or not, demonizing all Christians in one brush stroke and the Bible is not a smart strategy. Of course the spear of any movement contains the most radical and inflexible slogans and spokespersons. To pass in the Supreme Court, the biggest fears and objections of the general public must be dissuaded, and that is the teaching of gay "sex" education in grammar school. Sex education, by broad general consensus, defaults to the purview of parents, not government authorities. The success of "The Kids Are All Right" will go farther than anything else in changing the flash-fire hysteria of this issue because it focuses on love and universal family values all of America shares.
A sex education class was taught at my progressive public high school, that mentioned homosexuality in a very intelligent manner, according to my friends who took the class. I did not take the class myself, as a lesbian, I wish I had been there for that historic moment. Our class was the first to enjoy this new enlightened addition to the school district. The very well educated people who run our schools know what they are doing, and care very much about ALL of their students no matter what their sexual orientation.
Sexual education especially any thing relevant and intelligent about homosexual relationships, WAS NOT something that my parents had the credentials to teach me. But if they had, it was not going to make me a lesbian. I was already a lesbian.
I am honestly curious about people who are afraid of kids being taught about gay people and even gay sex.
Don't gay kids have a right to know how to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases as much as straight kids do? Don't gay kids have a right to dream about love, romance and meeting the right person? Don't gay kids have a right to be protected? Do they have the right to have crushes without getting shot in the head in the middle of class?
Do gay kids have any rights at all?
@GrrrlRomeo:
No gay kids have no rights at all. The fact is we should not be allowing gay marriage. Everyone knows that it's only a matter of time before the world ends, being that we now have a black president and the Mayans predicted the world would collapse in 2012. Scientists, from NASA so you know they're smart people, have predicted we might come very close to colliding with a comet in 2012. I submit to all those gay rights supporters that this comet will hit us. And when it does it's going to bring with it a zombie virus. And when that virus spreads it will turn the majority of the planet into zombies. Those of us who aren't turned into zombies are going to have to run for the hills, lock ourselves in, and find someway to defeat them. Most likely we'll do this through robots. But because we can't go outside and our satellites won't be working anymore, we'll have to create robots with AI. And since they have AI they will eventually upgrade and since the zombies won't all be killed right away they will evolve. And once they evolve they're going to fall in love with the robots. And then you know what we'll have? ROBOMBIE SEXUALS!!! And I for one am OPPOSED to the idea that my children's children may have to learn about robombie sex. And what if they produce robombie children? Then they'd be robombie bombies. Then in the year 2050 we're going to have a robombie bombie president. I AM OPPOSED TO THIS! So it is clear- let's not allow gays to get married, or fall in love, or teach them about safe sex because if we do the robombies are coming!!!!
scientists also predict the big earthquake in California is coming before the year 2017 and that it is going to make california fall off the face of the earth. it's because of all the gays out here. that and because the women wear short skirts.
Why oh why is the Executive Branch sticking their nose into the Judicial function?
Obviously, he thinks this will help him get votes - and that gay votes are a done deal.
I was a PUMA and regret the day I didn't write Hillary's name on my ballot.
It's his religious belief. There is a divide among Christians on this issue just like there was on slavery. He's conflicted in a very ironic way.
There is also a serious divide inside the Republican Party between Libertarians and the Palin crowd over this issue. If conservatives continue to advocate withholding human rights to select groups of people (whom they choose) on the basis of religion, they will probably do irreperable harm to their religions as well as their political party.
I personally think all these Religious Right types are stuck back there in the Old Testament but refuse to admit they would rather be Jewish. It's that Chosen People thing along with some serious sexual bondage issues. Just look at Larry Craig and Vitter.
I am hopeful that Obama may change his view on same-sex marriage some day. At least before 2012, when I again will have to choose who to vote for to be President of the United States of America.
My take is that it is option B.
As Sullivan points out, Obama's (previous) church supported gay marriage, both his individual local congregation and the UCC denomination as a whole. In order for C to be true, Obama would have to be ignorant of the constitution. It is logically consistent with outlawing divorcees getting remarried (by the state) because the Catholic church doesn't allow it. He's a constitutional law expert - he knows he's lying when he uses his "God is in the mix" argument.
Sadly, Obama is losing this on the culture war front (A). Those who support gay marriage are disappointed in his failure to do so. And many who don't support gay marriage assume that he does. They already associate him with any advancement in gay rights that he tires to prevent. So instead of preventing a culture war, he is losing it on both fronts.
Honestly, based on the twisted logic he has used to defend his stances on gay rights, I think it comes down to B.
I agree with Sandyh-Obama is a religous man, but also believes in the separation of church and state. He's for gays in the military-but that's not a religous issue-marriage is. He can be against Prop 8 because it's unfair despite his own personal religous beliefs which should not be forced on anyone else. Not many can walk that fine line.
Politics are actually more circular than linear. If one goes far enough to the right, one actually starts to agree with the some things on the left. True libertarians don't believe in ANY government intrusions, especially in one's PRIVATE life. That includes the bedroom and the uterus. Social issues are not, therefore, going to draw them to the GOP.
I agree with Sullivan. The President's stand is not a stand. I am a huge supporter of Obama but the whole idea that he doesn't support LGBT marriage but he is for full equality is bull. It's the same concept as separate but equal. You can't have it both ways Mr. President. So please, choose.