Barack Obama's Open Letter to the LGBT Community

http://www.gaysofla.com/content/view/250/65/
03/18/2008

"I'm running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It's wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans."

He declares "equal rights for all" .... but you can't get married.  Equal but separate is not equal.  I would think that the lessons of segregation have taught us well that it is NOT the same.

Either get the government out of the marriage business..... or let all couples get married.  Either would work.  But lining up same sex couples in the "domestic partnership" queue is not equal.  It is separate.  It singles them out as different.  It merely provides the paperwork so that they can be marched into the ghetto whenever the right wing bigots deem it necessary.

I like Obama, I really do.  But this is an issue where I'm not on board with him.  I realize that we need to take small steps.  It just doesn't feel right to me.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on March 20, 2008, 01:21:54 AM
He declares "equal rights for all" .... but you can't get married.  Equal but separate is not equal.  I would think that the lessons of segregation have taught us well that it is NOT the same.

Either get the government out of the marriage business..... or let all couples get married.  Either would work.  But lining up same sex couples in the "domestic partnership" queue is not equal.  It is separate.  It singles them out as different.  It merely provides the paperwork so that they can be marched into the ghetto whenever the right wing bigots deem it necessary.

I like Obama, I really do.  But this is an issue where I'm not on board with him.  I realize that we need to take small steps.  It just doesn't feel right to me.

Cindi

I think the best we can hope for at this point in the fight for equality is 'equal but different'. Sadly, there is just too much opposition to 'equal full stop', which we need to chip away at gradually. Ultimately, what we need to fight for first are equal rights and responsibilities. Normalising things within society can only come once we have the opportunity to show people that marriage between same-sex couples, transgendered partners and the like are any time as loving, family-oriented and valid as a heterosexual relationship.

South Africa does allow all forms of marriage, including polygamous relationships, but not all marriages are the same under the law, though they are legally equal:

QuoteThree laws currently provide for the status of marriage in South Africa. These are the Marriage Act (Act 25 of 1961), the Customary Marriages Act (Act 120 of 1998), which provides for the civil registration of marriages solemnised according to the traditions of indigeneous tribes, and the Civil Union Act (Act 17 of 2006). South Africans may choose in terms of which of these laws they wish to be married, but may be married in terms of only one at a given time.

Same-sex marriages are only allowed in terms of the Civil Union Act. Couples marrying in terms of the Civil Union Act may choose whether their union is called a civil partnership or a marriage partnership. Couples joined in a marriage partnership in terms of that act enjoy the same privileges as couples married in terms of the Marriage Act.

If it can be proven that a couple is married in terms of any of these three acts, that marriage is legally valid and may not be regarded as an invalid marriage or a non-marriage by anyone or any organisation. It is therefore illegal for any organisation to treat any such married persons as if they were unmarried.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_South_Africa

Quote from: Cindi Jones on March 20, 2008, 01:21:54 AM
Either get the government out of the marriage business..... or let all couples get married. 

I'd like to see it go a step beyond just letting couples get married.

I've met people in triads and quads. They're all happy, but they have less chance of getting legally married than same-sex couples. Polygamy is even worse than homosexuality, it seems.

I firmly believe that if you live in the same house and depend on each other, you should be able to declare yourselves a "household".  A household should share the legal equal rights as any other household.

I would like to see us register households instead of marriages.  Once you get married in your church, you can register as a household.  If you have a partner you love, you can register as a household.  This way, there can be no argument as to the sacredness of the marriage commitment.  It is still performed in the church of your choice.  I've also seen households that do not contain a married couple or people in love.  I met a gent once who was caring for his deceased stepfather's wife. Neither individual had any other family. Why couldn't they share the same benefits of a household by registering with the government?

Our family groups are anything but traditional any more.  The statistics fly in the face of what traditionalists spout at the pulpit.

Now.... here we see South Africa pushing civil rights ahead of us.  Isn't that interesting?

Cindi

Well, he is a politician.  I doubt he could say that he fully supports gay marriage 100% even if he did.  Political consultants probably won't let him.  Or any other candidate for that matter. 
I think Obama might be our best chance.  At least he's talking about something of a step forward, rather than the other direction.  Obviously, what he's talking about is not ideal, but I guess I'm enough of a pessimist that I'm not surprised, or even much upset by it.
 
I realize that politics is a pretty volatile topic, and might wind up starting a bit of a flamewar (not my intention).  So, with that in mind:
My opinion about politics is that everyone makes a lot of great talk, but what we're ultimately talking about when passing laws is trying to get 100 Senators and something like 300+ Representatives to agree on something.  Not going to happen.  Why do you think Bush was unable to pass the abortion bans he wanted to even when the Republicans had control of Congress?  Or any of the other social conservative agenda he got elected with?  There were still enough Dems left to stop him.  Simple as that. 
Instead of doing something good for the US, he wasted all his political capital on a social agenda that didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of making it out of even one house (I'm thinking all the stuff that got him elected-- let's have prayer in schools, a constitutional amendment protecting the institution of marriage, ban on all abortions, not just "partial birth").  Yeah, he got the DOMA but that's not an earth shattering victory considering the bulls%^$ he was shoveling during his campaign. 
Anyway, I think it'll work the other way if Obama or Clinton gets the Presidency and Dems retain control of Congress.  There will still be enough Republicans left to stop full equality for LGBT people.  I think that what Obama is talking about is at least feasible rather than just a pipe dream. 
Don't even get me started on the Supreme Court....

Quote from: Cindi Jones on March 20, 2008, 12:38:42 PM
Now.... here we see South Africa pushing civil rights ahead of us.  Isn't that interesting?

Hon, the only reason that really happened was because of the wording of the constitution, which was drawn up to protect minorities in the face of apartheid. they still had to go to the constitutional court and fight for it. we're just lucky that the writers of the constitution back in 94-95 didn't quite consider ALL the angles...

We're not that special, just lucky.