RECENT  POSTS:  » Pro-discrimination activists continue to use one woman's one-sided spite against ex-husband to attack marriage equality » Audio: Tony Perkins minimizes actual religious persecution; pretends he and anti-gay pals face 'deadly consequences' » Ryan Anderson, Mark Regnerus, Rick Warren, other inequality advocates urge Pope to 'commit to marriage' » GLAAD: Are some anti-LGBT activists missing a self-awareness gene? » FRC faults Dems for broken, obstructionist Congress while advocating for broken, obstructionist Congress » FRC senior staffer: 'Ex-Gays: The Best Kept Secret in Your Child’s School' » Video: In inclusive ad, AZ Sec. of State hopeful makes discrimination his rival » That discriminatory OR baker is really overthinking reason why she's national news » Robert Oscar Lopez confirms belief that gay parents are like slave owners » Video: Values Voter Summit marriage panel was particularly boring, bad, ineffective this year  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/16/2009

Dear Obama admin: Can we too have a decoder (and wedding) ring?

by Jeremy Hooper

ObamaWell, it's something:

In response to an inquiry from The Advocate, the White House issued the following statement regarding President Barack Obama’s position on anti-gay voter referenda in Maine and Washington.

“The President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples, and as he said at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, he believes ‘strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away.’ Also at the dinner, he said he supports, ‘ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country.’

White House Issues Statement On Antigay Referenda [Advocate]

Sorry, White House, but you'll have to forgive us if we were unsure about what, exactly, he meant at the HRC dinner, considering (a) we never heard the words Maine or Washington, and (b) this President is on still on record as personally opposing full marriage equality. If "ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country" doesn't apparently mean that gay couples are entitled to full marital equality under the civil law, then why should we jump to the conclusion that President Obama's voiced commitment was meant to apply to the Pine Tree State, where full marriage equality is what we're fighting to preserve? Since the president instance on keeping his stance a puzzle, we're not going to be so bold to pretend that we know which pieces he means to go where!

But thanks for clarifying, West Wingers. We look forward to the day when "uhm, yea, duh" will be the administration's no-brainer answer to any question having to do with the full civil equality of any of this nation's tax-paying citizens.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I see this a little differently and perhaps not so negatively. If the president makes a statement on this it would weaken the 10th amendment argument the state of Massachusetts is making against DOMA. Marriage has traditionally been within the purview of state government. It would make that argument more difficult if Obama were to speak out on this. Think about the big picture. Once we have DOMA removed on 10th amendment grounds we can then argue that state DOMAs infringe federal equal protection under the 14th amendment.

Posted by: David | Oct 16, 2009 4:45:09 PM

LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME I'M HETEROSEXUAL!!! LET'S HOLD A PARADE CELEBRATING HETEROSEXUALITY!!! I'M GONNA STAND IN THE STREET FLEXING MY MUSCLES WHILE WOMEN HANG OFF OF ME...... would sound stupid if a straight male did that huh? Something for gays to think about perhaps?

Here's how I see it, The U.S of A, UK, Australia etc etc, you know those nations with electoral systems based on majority votes? The electoral system and usually laws are based on a majority vote correct? I mean our leaders are usually voted into power by the majority right? Now if the majority is heterosexual people, and those who don't think of homosexuality as a normal mental illness free activity then doesn't it stand to reason that if the government that was elected by those people went against their wishes then it no longer becomes a democracy, Seriously, if minority groups got their way think how the world would be? pedophilia and beastiality would be legal, criminals would never be locked up etc etc. Though from experience no matter how it's put, you won't find many gays who can see it that way. Thing is you live in a place that has majority rule, so deal with it. Or doesn't what the majority want matter anymore? Maybe we should just ditch democracy altogether for peoples sexual prefences altogether huh? Otherwise go start a gay nation whwere heterophobes can indulge in their mental illness as much as they wish. P.S I am not saying Gays are the same as or will turn into abusers of animals or children, just saying there are many people with mental illnesses that consider how they are a "life style choice". Old saying you can't reason with crazy people, as they usually don't realise they crazy to begin with. So of course you'll never get a gay man to see theproblem with his choice or desire, and if you say it's not a choice,but how you're born, then as a species that is based on male/female copulation, you'd have to admit it's an abnormality. Screw race, religion, and sexual rights, all that matters is human rights. If those aren't being violated then STFU and live with the consequences of your decisions like everyone else has to. I can't blame the things I do in life on others and I accept all that comes with it. It's about EVERYBODY did the same, and not just think their selct little groups should be treated differently. Majority rules, it's how it's always been get used to it, it's not gonna be changing in a hurry. Hell when you do get given things you just want more, what next? Forced funding into finding a way to impregnate men as it's not fair or equal that hetero couples be the only people who can bare children? Seriously stop go look in the mirror and take a long hard think about it from a global view, and not from your own selfish wants and desires.

Posted by: atomic | Oct 17, 2009 9:54:31 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails