Gay Rights

^Alright, I'm guess you're not referring to Gay Rights and that's what this thread is about so I'm not going to respond about the whole 'lying to get votes', bit.

I meant about not keeping SOME of his promises. I was not referring to gay rights. It does take time.

*fixed*

Ok let me state it clear,

he said he was for gay marriage during the campain

then, he said he was against it.

lillyhardwood:

I meant about not keeping SOME of his promises. I was not referring to gay rights. It does take time.

And what happened to lowering taxes? they've been through the roof.

This isn't the proper thread to discuss lowering taxes. This is a Gay rights thread.

lillyhardwood:

Ok let me state it clear,

he said he was for gay marriage during the campain

then, he said he was against it.

Actually, he said he was for civil unions during the campaign.

lillyhardwood:

Yes true, very true but in some cases he completely does the opposite of what he said he would do during the election. He was just lying to get votes.

Just because he entered office doesn't mean he's going to take all the problems he was faced with right away. He had a recession, two wars (Afghanistan & Iraq, in case you didn't hear), high taxes, and basically the disapproval of a hell've a lot of countries.

He's doing the best he can. He'll eventually get to gay rights when it's time. I think he could move it up on his to-do list, but he's doing the best he could. I think things like the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq, and the recession should be on the top of his list, as they are. I think gay rights should come next. It's his decision, but things take time when he does try to approach them. He has a whole government he has to deal with. He's not a dictator....he can't do what he wants when he wants.

lillyhardwood:

Yes true, very true but in some cases he completely does the opposite of what he said he would do during the election. He was just lying to get votes.

What's the proof that he's lying?

forbbidenfruite:

I want to know do you think the President should be spending so much more time on things have been worked on or work on gay rights wich isnt getting many of what was promised. ( I think this falls in to politics since it envoles the President and his laws.)

A. Obama is for Civil Unions.
B. The power to license marriage is solely with the sates. Obama could not do anything if he wanted to. In my opinion, I think it is better this way. Gay marriage will be legalized state by state as each state becomes ready. I have no faith in humanity, and as a gay man I do not have a single finger crossed, Obama has bigger things to worry about. International relations, the economy, and health care just to name a few. The meaningless piece of paper for gays will have to wait for the states.

MatthewMagic:

In my opinion, I think it is better this way. Gay marriage will be legalized state by state as each state becomes ready.

How is that better? Isn't it kind of unequal, to give people in one state a right and deny it to people in another state purely because of their address? I think if you give people a right in one state it should be granted to people in the other 49 too because you're all Americans at the end of the day. Then again, I'm not American, I don't live by a federal system so it's sort of alien to me.

MatthewMagic:

The meaningless piece of paper for gays will have to wait for the states.

The piece of paper is metaphorically meaningless but do you discount all of the rights and responsiblities that come along with it?

Bloodraine:

MatthewMagic:

In my opinion, I think it is better this way. Gay marriage will be legalized state by state as each state becomes ready.

How is that better? Isn't it kind of unequal, to give people in one state a right and deny it to people in another state purely because of their address? I think if you give people a right in one state it should be granted to people in the other 49 too because you're all Americans at the end of the day. Then again, I'm not American, I don't live by a federal system so it's sort of alien to me.

MatthewMagic:

The meaningless piece of paper for gays will have to wait for the states.

The piece of paper is metaphorically meaningless but do you discount all of the rights and responsiblities that come along with it?

It's better to do it state by state because then it will be legalized gradually one state at a time. If it was done nationally, as I stated previously, it wouldn't get legalized anywhere at all right now because many places aren't ready to do that. (And by ready, I mean the beliefs of the majority of those states haven't gotten to that point of acceptance yet. Should they? Yes. But that doesn't change that they haven't.) At least this way, there's that option and it's gradually growing more available. Also, the federal government IS working on legislation that would recognize those marriages in other states--like if you go to Las Vegas to get hitched at 17, you come back to a state where you have to be 18 and you're still considered married.

So, we are getting there.

Bloodraine:

MatthewMagic:

In my opinion, I think it is better this way. Gay marriage will be legalized state by state as each state becomes ready.

How is that better? Isn't it kind of unequal, to give people in one state a right and deny it to people in another state purely because of their address? I think if you give people a right in one state it should be granted to people in the other 49 too because you're all Americans at the end of the day. Then again, I'm not American, I don't live by a federal system so it's sort of alien to me.

MatthewMagic:

The meaningless piece of paper for gays will have to wait for the states.

The piece of paper is metaphorically meaningless but do you discount all of the rights and responsibilities that come along with it?

It's better because as the opinion becomes more popular in each state each state will legalize it. A blanket legalization would infringe on states rights and lead to protests, demonstrations and in some of the more radical states, modern day lynchings. This allows the states who are ready to legalize, while the states were it would cause radical public backlash to prepare themselves. It's not ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world.

I want to point something out. I live in Ohio a state where neither gay marriage or civil unions are recognized. Here I can put my same-sex partner on my health insurance. While I can not adopt I can have a surrogate child, and my partner can adopt them. Though I would have to live by slightly stricter rules as long as I can prove my same-sex partner and I live in the same house, we have most of the rights married couples do. This is due to the equal protection clause in the 14nth amendment, I could sue the state, and win, if these rights were not given to me.

MatthewMagic:

B. The power to license marriage is solely with the sates. Obama could not do anything if he wanted to. In my opinion, I think it is better this way. Gay marriage will be legalized state by state as each state becomes ready. I have no faith in humanity, and as a gay man I do not have a single finger crossed, Obama has bigger things to worry about. International relations, the economy, and health care just to name a few. The meaningless piece of paper for gays will have to wait for the states.

I guess that would be somewhat better, going state by state. Places like Masschusetts would probably be more ready to accept gay marriage than in places like Texas, and such...

MatthewMagic:

This is due to the equal protection clause in the 14nth amendment, I could sue the state, and win, if these rights were not given to me.

Only if your state is one of the states that recognizes discrimination against sexual orientation. Not all states do.

After we manage to fix the economy, or at least get it back to where its' not about to fall off the edge, then we should put some of our focus on gay rights. I'm not against gay rights, in fact, I'm pushing for some of my friends that are gay to go for it and be out there. But how things are going right now, adding another issue to our giant "problems" plate isn't going to go over well. If people who just so happen to be gay loose their jobs (hopefully not from discrimination), then how are they going to pay for their wedding and such. See what I mean?

Dark Insanity:

If people who just so happen to be gay loose their jobs (hopefully not from discrimination), then how are they going to pay for their wedding and such. See what I mean?

And if their unemployed significant other that would be their spouse if they could get married falls ill how are they supposed to help them without being able to add that personal onto their health insurance?

It's not that I don't agree that there are several other important issues on the table right now, it's that I don't like it when people say it's not that important of an issue.

As for losing jobs, there are several military people losing theirs if it comes out their gay. So if its jobs we're worried about, maybe we could repeal "don't ask, don't tell".

Let the states manage gay rights for now. We're currently undergoing enough problematic issues than homosexual rights. Besides, our laws have become exceedingly open minded. If a person wishes to flee discrimination, they merely have to go to liberal states such as California. Or they could begin a new civil rights movement, which I look forward to :) Few presidents interfered with equal rights.

margaretlegs:

Let the states manage gay rights for now. We're currently undergoing enough problematic issues than homosexual rights. Besides, our laws have become exceedingly open minded. If a person wishes to flee discrimination, they merely have to go to liberal states such as California.

Liberal states such as California? You do realize California passed Prop 8 which made it illegal for gay people to get married, right?

^
I think she meant that the people in California were more liberal. I mean, California was the start of one of the most cultrally liberal movements ever, the hippie movement. So you can't really say they're not a big state when it comes to liberalism :shifty

I don't see how it's fair to say to someone, "Hey- you don't like the fact that you're discriminated against here? Pack up your things and move to one of those liberal states. There's more pressing matters at hand than your personal freedoms."

kelseykillscliche:

^
I think she meant that the people in California were more liberal. I mean, California was the start of one of the most cultrally liberal movements ever, the hippie movement. So you can't really say they're not a big state when it comes to liberalism :shifty

I fail to see that there's a single state in America that isn't a big state when it comes to Liberalism. Okay, maybe this is just me being incredibly picky, but there's a big difference between using the adjective 'liberal' and the connotations it creates and refering to the political ideology of Liberalism. The vast majority of America lives by some sort of Liberalism.