LGBT Rights

[KeithE]

Obama came out in favor of equal rights for gay/lesbian rights after Biden did.

Is it right for a “state= secular government entity” to recognize gay and lesbian couples in terms of practical matters such as hospitalization visits, IRS joint returns, etc?

Politically was this a bold move or a bad move?

Was he being “political”, calculating whether or not he would gain more votes or lose more votes? Or was it a genuine moment and an announcement of a change of heart caused by his daughters viewpoints (as he said) or Biden’s comments?

[Ed Pettibone]

[Haruo]

I think it will cost some votes and gain others, but just off the top of my head I'm not at all sure the gains and losses will be in the places where they will help the Democrats the most this fall.

[Tim Bonney]

I think it was a bold move and a good move based on separation of church and state. Which gender marries whom is a religious matter and not a government matter.

As to why the President did this, my speculation would be that he is seeking to solidify his base with progressives and contrast himself with Romney's etch-a-sketching to the right by doing a little of his own moving back to the left. When you have Republicans going after birth control and other social issues you scare not only Dems but also independents and women voters.

[ET]

[Sandy]

This is a complicated issue. Marriage is a civil institution, though for Christians, it is defined by the scripture as being between a man and a woman, and there's nothing about a "committed relationship." Israel was the only nation in history that had a covenant relationship with God, the covenant now is with individuals through Christ. So I don't believe that God will bring down some kind of judgement on the nation because it elected a president who expresses a favorable opinion of it. God doesn't redeem "nations" collectively, nor does he collectively condemn them. I don't believe that two people of the same gender being in a marriage relationship is something that God approves, but he gives them the free will to make that choice.

I don't think that legal recognition of what is a civil institution, and not a Christian one, violates the constitution, nor will it do damage to the institution of the family, or to marriage itself, at least, not any more than has already been done to it by the divorce rate or the breakdown of families that has already occurred due to dozens of other social factors.

From a political perspective, this was a good move. He's not looking for support from evangelical conservatives anyway. But though the country is evenly divided on this issue, with slightly more than 50% of voters also approving of same-sex marriage, Obama's "state's rights" approach to legalizing it neutralizes any genuine additional backlash he might receive over it. This makes big points with younger voters, and with social progressives disenchanted by his lean toward the conservative side. The tea partiers have said this needs to be a states' rights issue. That means that Obama won't be pushing it as a federal issue, and there are probably few other states out there that won;t as well.

[Haruo]

[Neil Heath]

[Ed Pettibone]

[ET]

Interesting, Neil, although when the writer throws in terms like "homophobic writings", well, I think I'd check other sources for other explanations of those documents and rites and look into just how numerous and accepted they were. After all, the apostle Paul rebuked several churches over the immorality they let take place among their members.

[KeithE]

After dropping this bomb this morning, let me answer my own questions with my opinions.

1)Is it right for a “state= secular government entity” to recognize gay and lesbian couples in terms of practical matters such as hospitalization visits, IRS joint returns, etc?
Yes in terms of hospitalization, joint taxes , life insurance. Everyone needs a friend a cohort - I believe in the Power of 2 regardless of gender/age/race/religion. Where I might draw the line is whether a male couple wanted to adopt a female child or vice-versa. They would at least have a strike against them in terms of providing a same sex authority figure/role model.

2)Politically was this a bold move or a bad move?

Time will tell if it was effective or not. I’m about 50/50 on that question.

3) Was he being “political”, calculating whether or not he would gain more votes or lose more votes? Or was it a genuine moment and an announcement of a change of heart caused by his daughters viewpoints (as he said) or Biden’s comments?

I’d say both. Biden and his daughters made him think about the subject but he certainly weighed in the pure political consequences and judged it would help.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Neil Heath]

Folks, I'm just passing along an interesting bit of trivia I found. Do with it what you like. Those who oppose the idea are quick to discredit him as a scholar and a person, I see. That's not the issue of interest to me.

Did anyone looking into this find evidence that refutes the existence of these church ceremonies in earlier centuries, which is the issue related to this topic. If his info is correct--namely that the church had those practices in place at one time--I find that to be new information of some interest to the discussion.

I suggest more research into the church's history to get to the bottom of this, if someone is so inclined. I'm not.

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Hal Eaton]

Musings on the topic: An interesting thread. Several have offered their analyses of Obama's motivation in "coming out" with regard to same-sex marriage.

May I question the motivation of those who have offered supportive or derogatory views of why Obama offered what appears to be his personal evaluation of the problem? (Turn-about is fair play!)

My view: Obama is a decent man; while he must fret about every word he speaks with regard to how the general public will examine and interpret those words, he is still a decent man, with decent appraisements of propositiions which concern most of us.

Counterpoint: Did any of you watch Mitt Romney this morning at Liberty University's commencement? He defined marriage as between a man and a woman - - -to thunderous applause. (Did that take courage?)

IMO

[Stephen Fox]

Strong essay capped byMRob quote

https://stillsearching.wordpress.com/ta ... -robinson/

[Gene Scarborough]

This has been going on in 2 places---one I started and one Keith started here---both significant approaches!

I am watching "Meet the Press" and that started the process last Sunday with Biden / Obama coming clear Wednesday / today a more complete panel including Clay Aiken, the new gay country singer from outside Raleigh, NC. Of course, NC had its big Marriage Amendment adopted by 61% of our "brilliant populace so sophisticated!"

You would not ever call this "hiding any cards from anybody in America" right now! Let it all hang out for examination.

I am strongly drawn to Ed's scholar. What we all must remember is that history is written by the winners so it can hide things the losers expressed---like Gnostic Gospels / gay openess in Greek, Roman and Egyptian society when the Hebrews were most definitely about stoning queers.

I think the main issue here is simply PREJUDICE.

My southern ancestors contended "Negroes had no souls" to stomp out their slave rights and enjoy the prejudice. I think it is being the same with same-sex unions.

Quickly, the Mecklenberg County (Charlotte) School Board is making noises over spousal benefits for anyone other than opposite-sex unions of their workers. The demographics of the vote clearly favored being againt the Marriage Amendment in each area having a major higher educational institution in NC. Outside of that the, whole vote went 61% for the Amendment---this, despite the Attorney General pointing out the NC Constitution only provided for male/female unions already. Billy Graham came out for it and much money was put into big ads from him---likely Republican/Tea Party funded. For sure, lawyers in NC will get rich righting and arguing before the courts of this state!

I like the reasoned take of both this discussion and the other thread. I am anxious to find out more of Ed's scholar who is cited here and in the other blog as well (brought up by me no less when Ed and I usually clash somewhat).

This issue is serious and timely. It definitely gets our attention!

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Gene Prof. John Boswell is not "Ed's scholar", I just happened to notice that a brief unidentified quote by you came from an article about him published by a Website that promotes homosexuality. In other words we are talking about the same gay guy.

[Gene Scarborough]

Glad you posted more about him. No inference that he is not the same guy I quoted in the article on the other thread.