Obama Admin: Still Anti-Gay

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]pat wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
pat wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
I like to compare anyone who is against gay marriage now to anyone that was against civil rights in the 60s. It’s eventually going to happen, no matter what. The right’s stance on this will clearly be outdated before long (5 years?) and it will hurt them.

And this ridiculous comparison is why nobody takes this shit seriously…Talk to any black person who grew up in that era and they will be rightly insulted by it. It’s not even close.

I’m not comparing the injustice, I’m just saying gay marriage is inevitable (just as civil rights for minorities was inevitable), and it’s going to hurt the right. Shit, they’re still being called racists to this very day (which no doubt has roots back to the civil rights era).

I also believe that people will eventually see abortion for what it is and that will be put to an end.

[/quote]

I don’t believe they will, but I hope they do. And hopefully it’ll be a much bigger stain on the left’s record than gay marriage is for the right.

22

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Spartiates wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:

Well said, although I must say that their anti gay marriage stance is probably the only spot in which I’m in extreme disagreement with conservative values. Other than that, I’m mostly on board.

That’s because the Right’s homophobic streak (mostly inherited from the Moral Majority in the 90s)have nothing conservative about it. Conservative, in the correct political sense, means that the government stays out of (i.e. is agnostic) to social and personal issues/agendas. Someone like Ron Paul is a better conservative than Mike Huckabee.

One has to see the hypocrisy in calling the government the root of all evil and demanding that it stay out of your life, then turning around and trying to use the government to enforce a social agenda (in this case deny two consenting adults the ability to enter into whatever acts or contracts they wish).

Again, well said.

PS - Ron Paul rocks, although I think we’re entirely too big to go back to the gold standard.[/quote]

I can assure you that the British commonwealth was much “bigger” in many ways and had a gold standard.

23

[quote]orion wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
Spartiates wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:

Well said, although I must say that their anti gay marriage stance is probably the only spot in which I’m in extreme disagreement with conservative values. Other than that, I’m mostly on board.

That’s because the Right’s homophobic streak (mostly inherited from the Moral Majority in the 90s)have nothing conservative about it. Conservative, in the correct political sense, means that the government stays out of (i.e. is agnostic) to social and personal issues/agendas. Someone like Ron Paul is a better conservative than Mike Huckabee.

One has to see the hypocrisy in calling the government the root of all evil and demanding that it stay out of your life, then turning around and trying to use the government to enforce a social agenda (in this case deny two consenting adults the ability to enter into whatever acts or contracts they wish).

Again, well said.

PS - Ron Paul rocks, although I think we’re entirely too big to go back to the gold standard.

I can assure you that the British commonwealth was much “bigger” in many ways and had a gold standard.

[/quote]

It would have been much easier to maintain if we had never gotten off the gold standard to begin with. Now that we’re off the gold standard, I think it would be damn near impossible to reinstate.

24

[quote]forlife wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
But forlife, out of curiosity do you think that the same standard applies to California’s amendment? i.e. that the courts are bound to uphold it because it is an amendment but that it should be changed? (actually, I pretty much take for granted your position that it should be repealed/changed, what about the first part?)

Yes, I think the same standard applies to California’s amendment, with one caveat. If the Supreme Court determined that the amendment was unconstitutional, then it would need to be revised. Unless that happens though, the amendment stands and should be enforced.[/quote]

Ok. But you said something that confused me. How is it possible to find an amendment unconstitutional? Amendments are by definition changes to the constitution and therefore cannot contradict the constitution once they become part of it. Was there some sort of problem with the protocol that was used to pass it into law? I thought in California you only needed a simple majority to amend instead of 2/3rds.

25

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
forlife wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
But forlife, out of curiosity do you think that the same standard applies to California’s amendment? i.e. that the courts are bound to uphold it because it is an amendment but that it should be changed? (actually, I pretty much take for granted your position that it should be repealed/changed, what about the first part?)

Yes, I think the same standard applies to California’s amendment, with one caveat. If the Supreme Court determined that the amendment was unconstitutional, then it would need to be revised. Unless that happens though, the amendment stands and should be enforced.

Ok. But you said something that confused me. How is it possible to find an amendment unconstitutional? Amendments are by definition changes to the constitution and therefore cannot contradict the constitution once they become part of it. Was there some sort of problem with the protocol that was used to pass it into law? I thought in California you only needed a simple majority to amend instead of 2/3rds.[/quote]

I think he means if the US supreme court finds that the amendment to the California Constitution was Unconstitutional regarding the US constitution. In other words, a state cannot amend it’s constitution in a way that violates the US constitution. So until the Supreme court makes a ruling on it, it should be enforced as is.

V

26

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
forlife wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
But forlife, out of curiosity do you think that the same standard applies to California’s amendment? i.e. that the courts are bound to uphold it because it is an amendment but that it should be changed? (actually, I pretty much take for granted your position that it should be repealed/changed, what about the first part?)

Yes, I think the same standard applies to California’s amendment, with one caveat. If the Supreme Court determined that the amendment was unconstitutional, then it would need to be revised. Unless that happens though, the amendment stands and should be enforced.

Ok. But you said something that confused me. How is it possible to find an amendment unconstitutional? Amendments are by definition changes to the constitution and therefore cannot contradict the constitution once they become part of it. Was there some sort of problem with the protocol that was used to pass it into law? I thought in California you only needed a simple majority to amend instead of 2/3rds.

I think he means if the US supreme court finds that the amendment to the California Constitution was Unconstitutional regarding the US constitution. In other words, a state cannot amend it’s constitution in a way that violates the US constitution. So until the Supreme court makes a ruling on it, it should be enforced as is.

V[/quote]

Mmm. My mistake. I haven’t been paying attention to Prop 8 since the initial hubbub so I didn’t realize that it was currently before the SCOTUS. I should have figured it out though.

27

Although brought up once in this thread, still it remains mostly side-stepped that all the hub-bub about being “against gays” and “gay rights” and so forth is really not at all about rights of gays.

Gays already have the right to have whatever relationship they want between them.

There is no legal right held by heterosexuals that gays do not also have.

What is being demanded is that OTHER people be forced by law to provide things for gays, that they may not choose to do.

Whether the taxpayer, or employers, or others.

It is not at all about gays not having the right to do what they want in their personal lives.

Yet all the discussion is always about gays supposedly being “denied rights.”

Well, I guess that argument plays a lot better.

28

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Although brought up once in this thread, still it remains mostly side-stepped that all the hub-bub about being “against gays” and “gay rights” and so forth is really not at all about rights of gays.

Gays already have the right to have whatever relationship they want between them.

There is no legal right held by heterosexuals that gays do not also have.

What is being demanded is that OTHER people be forced by law to provide things for gays, that they may not choose to do.

Whether the taxpayer, or employers, or others.

It is not at all about gays not having the right to do what they want in their personal lives.

Yet all the discussion is always about gays supposedly being “denied rights.”

Well, I guess that argument plays a lot better.[/quote]

Like I said before, even if it is all about the benefits, let the gays get married and have benefits. If your statistics are accurate (which I’m sure they are) there is no reason to suspect there will be a difference with gay people. Married gay people will be a better value than single gay people to a firm.

So, even if it’s all about benefits, who cares? Let them get married and have benefits.

29

You seem to be ignoring that your statement really is, “Let the law force others to give them benefits, out of their own pocket, that they don’t now choose to do.”

Any party that now voluntarily WANTS to provide these benefits can do so already.

You’re really all about forcing others to do what they don’t choose to do (in cases where they don’t) over and above mutually and voluntarily agreed employment arrangements, or other such similar situations.

Not about “letting” gays do something they now can’t.

But again, phrasing it that way doesn’t play as well. So I would hardly expect those arguing for this to couch it in terms of forcing others to do against their voluntary choice, which it really is, when they can recast it as “letting” gays “get benefits” and “have rights” which sounds so much better.

No law is needed to “let” anyone get benefits from an employer: all that is needed is for the employer to find that worth his while and something he is willing to agree to, and for the employee to find the job (salary, benefits, and any other value he finds) worth his while and something he is willing to agree to. This is already true for everyone, including gays.

Gays already have the same legal rights as everyone else. But boo-hoo, there are companies and entities that don’t choose to give a particular benefit to employees with a steady girlfriend or boyfriend, or who are committed to caring for their sibling, or what-have-you, or only to employees buying American cars or what-have-you, but only for a particular exact thing. Which many gays choose not to do, and don’t like that the employer doesn’t voluntarily choose to give that benefit, so they want the employer to be forced.

30

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You seem to be ignoring that your statement really is, “Let the law force others to give them benefits, out of their own pocket, that they don’t now choose to do.”

Any party that now voluntarily WANTS to provide these benefits can do so already.

You’re really all about forcing others to do what they don’t choose to do (in cases where they don’t) over and above mutually and voluntarily agreed employment arrangements, or other such similar situations.

Not about “letting” gays do something they now can’t.

But again, phrasing it that way doesn’t play as well. So I would hardly expect those arguing for this to couch it in terms of forcing others to do against their voluntary choice, which it really is, when they can recast it as “letting” gays “get benefits” which sounds so much better.[/quote]

Employers offer benefits (like you said) at their own will. If gay people get married they will then receive the benefits from the companies that offer them…at their own will. No one is forcing the companies to pay for benefits in the first place.

You’re using some sort of backwards logic which sounds like it tries to make an argument against gay marriage but it doesn’t. Your argument has nothing to do with why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, it just assumes that gays have ulterior motives for wanting gay marriage (which is unproven at best) and thus should not be allowed.

If we could be positive that gays wanted to marry for the same reasons straight people marry, would you still be against it?

31

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I like to compare anyone who is against gay marriage now to anyone that was against civil rights in the 60s.[/quote]

I’m fine with you doing that as long as you’re okay with me comparing the advancing acceptance of homosexuality in our Republic to the advancing acceptance of homosexuality in the Roman Republic.

32

[quote]lucasa wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
I like to compare anyone who is against gay marriage now to anyone that was against civil rights in the 60s.

I’m fine with you doing that as long as you’re okay with me comparing the advancing acceptance of homosexuality in our Republic to the advancing acceptance of homosexuality in the Roman Republic.

[/quote]

I have no idea what you’re getting at.

33

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
You seem to be ignoring that your statement really is, “Let the law force others to give them benefits, out of their own pocket, that they don’t now choose to do.”

Any party that now voluntarily WANTS to provide these benefits can do so already.

You’re really all about forcing others to do what they don’t choose to do (in cases where they don’t) over and above mutually and voluntarily agreed employment arrangements, or other such similar situations.

Not about “letting” gays do something they now can’t.

But again, phrasing it that way doesn’t play as well. So I would hardly expect those arguing for this to couch it in terms of forcing others to do against their voluntary choice, which it really is, when they can recast it as “letting” gays “get benefits” which sounds so much better.

Employers offer benefits (like you said) at their own will. If gay people get married they will then receive the benefits from the companies that offer them…at their own will. No one is forcing the companies to pay for benefits in the first place.[/quote]

No.

The companies offering such benefits have done so with understanding, intent, and application according to the word use as it has been for as many centuries back as the English language has been the English language. And longer than that, if considering etymology.

Where they want to include committed relationships between persons of the same sex, they ALREADY CAN. Doesn’t take a law.

What you and activists in this area want is for companies that had no intention of providing the benefits for anyone other than persons of the opposite sex married according to what has long been the definition of the word, to be forced to do so, or only to be able to escape it by providing the benefit to no one.

Or do you not want them to be forced in this manner?

34

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
orion wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
Spartiates wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:

Well said, although I must say that their anti gay marriage stance is probably the only spot in which I’m in extreme disagreement with conservative values. Other than that, I’m mostly on board.

That’s because the Right’s homophobic streak (mostly inherited from the Moral Majority in the 90s)have nothing conservative about it. Conservative, in the correct political sense, means that the government stays out of (i.e. is agnostic) to social and personal issues/agendas. Someone like Ron Paul is a better conservative than Mike Huckabee.

One has to see the hypocrisy in calling the government the root of all evil and demanding that it stay out of your life, then turning around and trying to use the government to enforce a social agenda (in this case deny two consenting adults the ability to enter into whatever acts or contracts they wish).

Again, well said.

PS - Ron Paul rocks, although I think we’re entirely too big to go back to the gold standard.

I can assure you that the British commonwealth was much “bigger” in many ways and had a gold standard.

It would have been much easier to maintain if we had never gotten off the gold standard to begin with. Now that we’re off the gold standard, I think it would be damn near impossible to reinstate.[/quote]

Why?

You already had two national banks and got rid of them?

35

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
You seem to be ignoring that your statement really is, “Let the law force others to give them benefits, out of their own pocket, that they don’t now choose to do.”

Any party that now voluntarily WANTS to provide these benefits can do so already.

You’re really all about forcing others to do what they don’t choose to do (in cases where they don’t) over and above mutually and voluntarily agreed employment arrangements, or other such similar situations.

Not about “letting” gays do something they now can’t.

But again, phrasing it that way doesn’t play as well. So I would hardly expect those arguing for this to couch it in terms of forcing others to do against their voluntary choice, which it really is, when they can recast it as “letting” gays “get benefits” which sounds so much better.

Employers offer benefits (like you said) at their own will. If gay people get married they will then receive the benefits from the companies that offer them…at their own will. No one is forcing the companies to pay for benefits in the first place.

No.

The companies offering such benefits have done so with understanding, intent, and application according to the word use as it has been for as many centuries back as the English language has been the English language. And longer than that, if considering etymology.

Where they want to include committed relationships between persons of the same sex, they ALREADY CAN. Doesn’t take a law.

What you and activists in this area want is for companies that had no intention of providing the benefits for anyone other than persons of the opposite sex married according to what has long been the definition of the word, to be forced to do so, or only to be able to escape it by providing the benefit to no one.

Or do you not want them to be forced in this manner?[/quote]

I like how you sidestepped my question.

If we could be positive that gays wanted marriage for the same reasons as straight people, would you still be against it?

You’re using an argument that assumes gay peoples intent. Not only is that presumptuous, it doesn’t give a reason as to why they shouldn’t be allowed.

36

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You seem to be ignoring that your statement really is, “Let the law force others to give them benefits, out of their own pocket, that they don’t now choose to do.”

Any party that now voluntarily WANTS to provide these benefits can do so already.

You’re really all about forcing others to do what they don’t choose to do (in cases where they don’t) over and above mutually and voluntarily agreed employment arrangements, or other such similar situations.

Not about “letting” gays do something they now can’t.

But again, phrasing it that way doesn’t play as well. So I would hardly expect those arguing for this to couch it in terms of forcing others to do against their voluntary choice, which it really is, when they can recast it as “letting” gays “get benefits” and “have rights” which sounds so much better.

No law is needed to “let” anyone get benefits from an employer: all that is needed is for the employer to find that worth his while and something he is willing to agree to, and for the employee to find the job (salary, benefits, and any other value he finds) worth his while and something he is willing to agree to. This is already true for everyone, including gays.

Gays already have the same legal rights as everyone else. But boo-hoo, there are companies and entities that don’t choose to give a particular benefit to employees with a steady girlfriend or boyfriend, or who are committed to caring for their sibling, or what-have-you, or only to employees buying American cars or what-have-you, but only for a particular exact thing. Which many gays choose not to do, and don’t like that the employer doesn’t voluntarily choose to give that benefit, so they want the employer to be forced.[/quote]

But dont you have a fundamental problem with justice and fairness here?

Forcing people do subsidize other peoples lifestyles might be deeply unjust but denying it to gays only is unfair on top of it.

So if governments arbitrarily create rights and exclude gays that is a problem. Should they not at least be fair if they have to be unjust?

37

Basically, am I summing up your post and position correctly to say that you are opposed to people having the freedom to operate their business according to voluntary agreement between employer and employee on what constitutes salary and benefits acceptable to both, when you don’t consider that “fair” ?

Instead, you want a party to be forced to do something they don’t choose to do, on account of your idea of how things should be.

I disagree.

In my view, if an employer wants to give benefits to those who ride Kawasaki motorcycles but not Hondas; to those who earn credits at a trade school but not at a university; to those who wear green clothes but not khaki; to those who have a dog at home but not to those who don’t; to those who are UNMARRIED but not to those that are married; or to those who are married to a person of the opposite sex but not to those who are not, in a free country that is his right.

But instead you call it a “right” to deny him his freedom of choice, and to insert government into what compensation may be mutually agreed on by employer and employee, whenever it’s a thing you consider “unfair.” Correct? Or if not, how is that not your position?

38

[quote]Vegita wrote:
I think he means if the US supreme court finds that the amendment to the California Constitution was Unconstitutional regarding the US constitution. In other words, a state cannot amend it’s constitution in a way that violates the US constitution. So until the Supreme court makes a ruling on it, it should be enforced as is. [/quote]

That’s part of it. Also, it is possible for a constitutional amendment to contradict the fundamental principles of the constitution itself. For example, if the California Supreme Court ruled that the amendment violated the equal protection clause of the constitution, they could strike it down. However, they subsequently confirmed Prop 8 as legal and valid:

[quote]After the passage of Proposition 8, a number of lawsuits were filed against the state and state officials with the intent of overturning the measure and arguing that Proposition 8 should not have retroactive effect on existing same-sex marriages. On November 13, 2008, the California Supreme Court asked California Attorney General Jerry Brown for an opinion on whether the Court should accept these cases for review and whether the measure should be suspended while they decide the case. On November 19, the Court accepted three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 but denied the requests to stay its enforcement. The Court asked for final briefs by January 5, 2009. Oral arguments were held on March 5, 2009.

On Tuesday May 26 the court ruled that “The Amendment to the State Constitution referred to as Proposition 8 is valid and enforceable from the moment it was passed.” The court also held that “Proposition 8 must be understood as creating a limited exception to the state equal protection clause.” Justice Moreno in his lone dissenting opinion, argued that such a change to the Constitution should only be implemented “by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons” and not by a simple majority vote.[/quote]

40

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Basically, am I summing up your post and position correctly to say that you are opposed to people having the freedom to operate their business according to voluntary agreement between employer and employee on what constitutes salary and benefits acceptable to both, when you don’t consider that “fair” ?

Instead, you want a party to be forced to do something they don’t choose to do, on account of your idea of how things should be.

I disagree.

In my view, if an employer wants to give benefits to those who ride Kawasaki motorcycles but not Hondas; to those who earn credits at a trade school but not at a university; to those who wear green clothes but not khaki; to those who have a dog at home but not to those who don’t; to those who are UNMARRIED but not to those that are married; or to those who are married to a person of the opposite sex but not to those who are not, in a free country that is his right.

But instead you call it a “right” to deny him his freedom of choice, and to insert government into what compensation may be mutually agreed on by employer and employee, whenever it’s a thing you consider “unfair.” Correct? Or if not, how is that not your position?[/quote]

If that was directed at me, this is a tricky question.

On the one hand, if it was all up to the employer employee relationship, I do not care.

They can give out benefits according to Celtic astrological signs as far as I care.

If government however mandated some benefits they force employers to subsidize lifestyles in the case of marriage.

That is unjust as you pointed out.

However if they do not also force them to pay out the same benefits to gay couples it is deeply unfair.

Since governments obviously do not care about natural rights should they not at least be fair?