I've encountered folks who will actually insist that Governor Romney's stance on marriage equality is better President Obama's. This, it seems to me, is either simple ignorance or an outright lie, as evidenced by Governor Romney's own web site.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values

QuoteMarriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom. It is also critical for the well-being of a civilization. That is why it is so important to preserve traditional marriage – the joining together of one man and one woman. As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act – a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton – but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

To me, those who are opposed to marriage equality are opposed to the three basic rights guaranteed (or so I thought) by the Declaration of Independence: "Life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

As someone who was once married, I can assure you all three of these most basic rights are guaranteed by legal marriage. Yes, Life included, when one considers medical and insurance benefits can be granted or denied based on legal marriage.

So when I hear a candidate or politician speak out against marriage equality, I wonder what other ways said persons are do not value what this country was built upon. To me, it's not just an issue of equality. It's that and more. In what other ways would these candidates and politicians want to limit "Life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?

I've been told that President Obama has done little more than to give lip service to marriage equality. To the best of my knowledge, he has been the first and only sitting US president to speak out in favor of it. George W. Bush had announced he would have supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage at the federal level, and Governor Romney says that marriage is great -- for straight people.

I've been told that Governor Romney's honest contempt is somehow preferential to President Obama's spoken support.

Sorry, I can't accept that.

It's been an election of false equivalencies (when it hasn't been one of outright lies).  I mean, wasn't that Mitt on the TV this AM saying: "Gov. Romney wants to ensure states, who are the first responders and are in the best position to aid impacted individuals and communities, have the resources and assistance they need to cope with natural disasters,"

Same guy who during the GOP debates argued that he would shut FEMA down?  Yeah, same guy.

So when some supporter is lying about the Obama vs. Romney record on gay rights it shouldn't surprise, it's par for the course anymore.

So here is the truth, when you look at the real record.

The president did say that to "try to legislate federally in this area is probably the wrong way to go."  Of course he went on to say that he opposed the Defense of Marriage Act.  Currently he is on record as supporting the three state ballot initiatives in separate states that would legalize gay marriage, as well as opposing a constitutional amendment in Minnesota that would ban it.

The President did instruct his Justice Department to stop defending DOMA in court, no doubt hoping (as many of us do) that the Supreme Court will eventually rule it unconstitutional. Also, Obama has come out in support for the Respect For Marriage Act, which is a legislative repeal of DOMA.  Absent that, there are few legislative or legal vehicles for Obama to push to affirm gay marriage on a federal level, which the opposition rarely mentions.

Not to mention that you can't get basic legislation past the Republicans in the last session, much less anything like this.



Here's Romney on FEMA during the GOP debates:
"Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut, we should ask the opposite question, what should we keep?"

"Including disaster relief, though?" >>> Debate moderator

"We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids.  It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all."

So yeah, kill FEMA, for the kids, you know.

First of all I wish to apologize to any member, or reader who comes across this thread.  My opinions are my own and do not reflect Susan's or any moderator.

All the ones who are opposed to same-sex marriage are using similar language that was used to opposes interracial marriage.  The world did not end when whites were allowed to marry African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians or any other race.  Marriage is not about having children (think of all those who can not have children), it is about loving one person.

Those who opposes any kind of loving relationship, are against their own marriage.  They are destroying the idea of a loving relationship.

Same-sex marriage will not lead to humans marrying animals, marrying inanimate objects or anything else.  People are doing that anyway.

Quote from: tekla on October 29, 2012, 10:33:50 AM
SNIP

The president did say that to "try to legislate federally in this area is probably the wrong way to go."  Of course he went on to say that he opposed the Defense of Marriage Act.  Currently he is on record as supporting the three state ballot initiatives in separate states that would legalize gay marriage, as well as opposing a constitutional amendment in Minnesota that would ban it.

The President did instruct his Justice Department to stop defending DOMA in court, no doubt hoping (as many of us do) that the Supreme Court will eventually rule it unconstitutional. Also, Obama has come out in support for the Respect For Marriage Act, which is a legislative repeal of DOMA.  Absent that, there are few legislative or legal vehicles for Obama to push to affirm gay marriage on a federal level, which the opposition rarely mentions.

US Constitution,
Article II, Section 3

[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

Another abdication of duty by Mr. Obama.

Can one imagine another President deciding which laws, passed by by large majorities in Congress, and signed by a Democrat President, to follow, and which not to follow?

There is a word for that.  Dictatorship.

So, we should just let the majority overrun the rights of minorities then? If statistical analyses of population demographics are correct, then the straights outnumber the queers. In a majority rule society, it means those of us in the numeric minority can have our rights lawfully trampled.

It's not dictatorship, it's activism. It's a man who has recognized an unjust law and is working to help people like me. Trying within the system hasn't helped. So, a more dramatic approach is necessary. Just because something is law doesn't make it right (see Ms. Obrien's post about interracial marriage, which had also been illegal once).

Good thing there isn't a federal law making transition illegal, too. If there was, would you as reflexively support that law's enforcement, too?

Oh chill.  All Presidents (and their AG) pick and choose what laws they feel should receive greater or less attention for enforcement.  This is no different from pushing or not pushing OSHA standards, or white collar crime.

And wouldn't a dictator just, you know, dictate that there was a new law?

Quote from: Constance on October 29, 2012, 10:11:18 AM
I've encountered folks who will actually insist that Governor Romney's stance on marriage equality is better President Obama's. This, it seems to me, is either simple ignorance or an outright lie, as evidenced by Governor Romney's own web site.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values
To me, those who are opposed to marriage equality are opposed to the three basic rights guaranteed (or so I thought) by the Declaration of Independence: "Life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

As someone who was once married, I can assure you all three of these most basic rights are guaranteed by legal marriage. Yes, Life included, when one considers medical and insurance benefits can be granted or denied based on legal marriage.

So when I hear a candidate or politician speak out against marriage equality, I wonder what other ways said persons are do not value what this country was built upon. To me, it's not just an issue of equality. It's that and more. In what other ways would these candidates and politicians want to limit "Life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?

I've been told that President Obama has done little more than to give lip service to marriage equality. To the best of my knowledge, he has been the first and only sitting US president to speak out in favor of it. George W. Bush had announced he would have supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage at the federal level, and Governor Romney says that marriage is great -- for straight people.

I've been told that Governor Romney's honest contempt is somehow preferential to President Obama's spoken support.

Sorry, I can't accept that.

The Declaration of Independence points out some of those fundamental natural rights which every human being is entitled, as a function of their humanity.

Certainly, the right to associate and live your life with the ones you love, is a natural right.

But it is important not to conflate a human right with a regulation.  I my opinion, the government, especially the federal government, has no business intruding into personal relationships and regulating marriage.  That is why I am opposed to legislation, such as DOMA.

At the same time, that law was legally enacted, and should be repealed in the same manner it was passed, as a political action by the people's representatives.  That is why the utter lack of any action by the Democrat Congress and the current President was unconscionable.

You do realize that the DoI was not a governing document, but a radical manifesto in support of a violent revolution?

Quote from: tekla on October 29, 2012, 11:27:10 AM
Oh chill.  All Presidents (and their AG) pick and choose what laws they feel should receive greater or less attention for enforcement.  This is no different from pushing or not pushing OSHA standards, or white collar crime.

And wouldn't a dictator just, you know, dictate that there was a new law?

When a President can pick and choose which laws to enforce, then the "rule of law" no longer exists.

Well, according to that definition then Rule of Law never existed in this country.

Quote from: tekla on October 29, 2012, 11:39:15 AM
You do realize that the DoI was not a governing document, but a radical manifesto in support of a violent revolution?

The Declaration of Independence enunciated the right of the people to self-governance, in the face of oppression and tyranny.

Yeah, by violently overthrowing the legitimate government they currently had.  And it's not a governance document, its a manifesto.  For governing, that's the Constitution, you know, the one that starts off: We the People  of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's a pretty different deal.

So, what does this mean for civil disobedience? They aren't activists, they're just criminals.

I've heard of various politicians in this country who are pushing to make legal gender change illegal. There's was news story recently of a judge in OK who refused to grant a name change for an MTF to a femme name. If such laws are put into place, it would be wrong to engage in civil disobedience against them?

Can the president not engage in civil disobedience? Isn't he a citizen, too?

Actually it's one of the very few positions that Romney has been consistent about.

Senate Judiciary Committee , June 22, 2004
"We need an amendment that restores and protects our societal definition of marriage, [and] blocks judges from changing that definition at this point, the only way to reestablish the status quo is to preserve the definition of marriage in the federal Constitution before courts redefine it out of existence."

South Carolina, 2005, (via the LA Times.)
"From Day One, I've opposed the move for same-sex marriage and its equivalent, civil unions,"

New York Times, April 25th, 2004
''Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage. We do not intend to export our marriage confusion to the entire nation.''

ABC News' This Week,
February 18, 2007.
" From the very beginning of my political life and well before that, I've felt marriage is between a man and a woman and not between people of the same gender."

CPAC, February 10, 2012
"When I am president, I will preserve the Defense of Marriage Act and I will fight for a federal amendment defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman."

Fox News/WSJ debate in South Carolina, Jan. 16, 2012, (via Politico)
"I've always opposed gay marriage. I believe that we should provide equal rights to people regardless of their sexual orientation but I do not believe that marriage should be between two people of the same gender." -

Boston Globe, February 26th, 2005
"America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home,' Romney said, calling the Supreme Judicial Court's legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts 'a blow to the family.'"


So yeah, they are both the same.

Quote from: Constance on October 29, 2012, 11:26:32 AM
So, we should just let the majority overrun the rights of minorities then? If statistical analyses of population demographics are correct, then the straights outnumber the queers. In a majority rule society, it means those of us in the numeric minority can have our rights lawfully trampled.

It's not dictatorship, it's activism. It's a man who has recognized an unjust law and is working to help people like me. Trying within the system hasn't helped. So, a more dramatic approach is necessary. Just because something is law doesn't make it right (see Ms. Obrien's post about interracial marriage, which had also been illegal once).

Good thing there isn't a federal law making transition illegal, too. If there was, would you as reflexively support that law's enforcement, too?

Part of the discussion surrounding the ratification of the proposed Constitution of 1787, as seen in the Federalist Papers of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, was how to best protect political minorities within a system that was based on the concept of majority rule.

Part of the solution was to guarantee certain rights, and provide for a method of amending the Constitution.

For much of history of this country, and the states, things like gay rights were not recognized, and indeed, were illegal.

My question to you is, is "transition" a federal issue?  Madison wrote in Federalist #45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined."  If such a law were passed, I would challenge it, as an invalid exercise of political power, and work to have it overturned.

Of course, the Democrats did not do anything like that with DOMA or ENDA during the 111th Congress.  I wonder why?

Quote from: Constance on October 29, 2012, 11:50:44 AM
So, what does this mean for civil disobedience? They aren't activists, they're just criminals.

I've heard of various politicians in this country who are pushing to make legal gender change illegal. There's was news story recently of a judge in OK who refused to grant a name change for an MTF to a femme name. If such laws are put into place, it would be wrong to engage in civil disobedience against them?

Can the president not engage in civil disobedience? Isn't he a citizen, too?

Mr Obama certainly can engage in civil disobedience ... as soon as he resigns his position.  He took an oath of office, and if he can not do his duty, he should quit.

Is transition a federal issue? Yes: IRS, SSA, citizenship, passport applications. These things are legal issues at the federal level.

Quote from: Jamie D on October 29, 2012, 12:00:30 PM
Mr Obama certainly can engage in civil disobedience ... as soon as he resigns his position.  He took an oath of office, and if he can not do his duty, he should quit.

So, one gives up one's civil rights to serve the country?

Quote from: tekla on October 29, 2012, 11:48:09 AM
Yeah, by violently overthrowing the legitimate government they currently had.  And it's not a governance document, its a manifesto.  For governing, that's the Constitution, you know, the one that starts off: We the People  of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's a pretty different deal.

The right to revolution in the face of tyranny and oppression is fundamental.

Tekla, you never struck me as "Establishment." 

Quote from: Constance on October 29, 2012, 12:02:52 PM
So, one gives up one's civil rights to serve the country?

Absolutely YES! I gave up every right I had, to include the right to live when I signed up to serve this country.  The President certainly gives up every right too.

Quote from: Constance on October 29, 2012, 12:02:52 PM
Is transition a federal issue? Yes: IRS, SSA, citizenship, passport applications. These things are legal issues at the federal level.
So, one gives up one's civil rights to serve the country?

When one accepts a position within the government, one certainly does give up some rights (i.e. Hatch Act).  But more importantly, an elected official, who takes an oath of office, has additional duties in relation to their term of service.