Obama supports Gay Marriage

[Pepper Brooks]

How long has it taken him to come around to $#@! Cheney's position?

What a champ.

well he also clearly agrees with cheney's views that deficits don't matter so he's pretty well aligning himself with ole' $#@!.

[FondrenRoad]

What I said is without merit is Wulaw Horn's argument that denying gay marriage somehow has anything to do with ordered procreation. Since homosexuals are already out of the game, married or not, allowing them to marry does nothing to hinder the state's interest in encouraging heterosexuals to marry for the purposes of procreation.

It is the old Laphroaig argument. Shocking that it is espoused by Escriva who appeared the minute after Laphroaig2, LesterFreeman, left. The logic is that it isn't really about the out of the closet homosexuals. It is about keeping the closeted homosexuals miserable in heterosexual marriages where they live in shame of their true feelings. If they see that gays can be married and it becomes an "accepted" lifestyle, more of these closeted homosexuals will leave to follow their true feelings.

[LongIslandIceSIP]

As someone pointed out, the Catholic church does't recognize marriages between a catholic and a non-catholic, while the government does recognize it, and there is nothing in the law to try and make the church recognize it.

False. As long as one person is Catholic and the other is Christian, the Catholic church will recognize it. Also, there are permissions available to marry non baptized Christians.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/cath...Q_Marriage.htm

[Wulaw Horn]

And how old are they? And further, how many of them at some time in the past were in favor of marriage equality?

By and large, the 18 year old woman who believes in marriage equality today will still agree with it when she's 50. She'll know too many people she'd be throwing under the bus if she changed her tune. That's my point.

50, 42, 38 and 19. And I'm sorry for being unclear, I've been shifting from future to present. My point in that post was I don't know if it helps him in the present, and it could certainly hurt him.

[Wulaw Horn]

Yeah, it's pretty much completely without merit. Denying gay marriage does nothing to regulate procreation because 1) procreation isn't limited to married people and 2) disallowing gays to marry isn't going to make them procreate as a response to that denial. Don't see how it could be argued that it's a public safety or health issue since gay marriage would encourage monogamous gay relationships, thus reducing the spread of STDs.

You are confusing what you think with how the court has previously ruled. Whenever marriage gets brought up this is trotted out (procreation). I'm not saying the supreme court will continue to frame the discussion in this way, I'm saying that's how it's currently framed, and to do otherwise is a walk back against present case law. Granted, that's how laws change, but it would be a change, and not a minor one.

[Wulaw Horn]

Elderly couples cannot achieve the objective, either. Yet, I know of no state that has said that the elderly cannot marry. I'm not talking judicial fiat, here. I'm talking basic logic. If a state is going to attest that they have a rationale for disallowing gay marriage for reasons which they are not applying to all couples across the board, I can easily see a court finding that the only reason to deny gay marriage while at the same time allowing geriatric marriage is that the state is being discriminatory.

Look- I already covered this when I talked about scrutiny argument. If they call it a compelling state interest (ordering procreation) than they apply very little scrutiny and ask if it's rationally related, which just about every single law that even touches on a subject it purports to regulate is found. It's all about the scrutiny test, and I think that these laws would be found to be rationally related (again, not best, or least invasive- which is what is needed to pass a heightened scrutiny test).

Now, I happen to believe that if this issue ever goes to the supreme court they will choose a higher scrutiny, and overturn the laws, but that will be a fairly significant departure from the laws of the land we are currently living under. Which is all my point was in saying that it's not without argument- I'm not saying it's a winner, I'm saying it has basis- and the proof it has basis is that it's basically the current law of the land (though likely to change imo if the Supreme's ever take the issue up).

[Wulaw Horn]

False. As long as one person is Catholic and the other is Christian, the Catholic church will recognize it. Also, there are permissions available to marry non baptized Christians.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/cath...Q_Marriage.htm

That's how it went down for me in my first marriage as a christian non-catholic marrying a catholic.

[naked_bongo]

SIAP - http://whenobamaendorsed.tumblr.com/

[washparkhorn]

With the North Carolina vote, are the Democrats planning to move their convention out of Charlotte?

[FCHorn]

With the North Carolina vote, are the Democrats planning to move their convention out of Charlotte?

Are Dems gonna hold their convention in a homophobic state?omg!
Can't wait to see how this plays out...

[FondrenRoad]

To be honest, I've never seen how marriage is beneficial to a primary breadwinner in any way.

[naked_bongo]

With the North Carolina vote, are the Democrats planning to move their convention out of Charlotte?

Of course not. Do you seriously think that would be a possibility, or are you just doing your usual internet game where you try to deflect attention from the fact that Obama finally did the right thing, and it gets you all pissy like a petulant five-year old? Can't wait for a .gif to follow in your response from my favorite one trick pony.

[Mizzou415]

Look- I already covered this when I talked about scrutiny argument. If they call it a compelling state interest (ordering procreation) than they apply very little scrutiny and ask if it's rationally related, which just about every single law that even touches on a subject it purports to regulate is found. It's all about the scrutiny test, and I think that these laws would be found to be rationally related (again, not best, or least invasive- which is what is needed to pass a heightened scrutiny test).

Now, I happen to believe that if this issue ever goes to the supreme court they will choose a higher scrutiny, and overturn the laws, but that will be a fairly significant departure from the laws of the land we are currently living under. Which is all my point was in saying that it's not without argument- I'm not saying it's a winner, I'm saying it has basis- and the proof it has basis is that it's basically the current law of the land (though likely to change imo if the Supreme's ever take the issue up).

The words "procreation", "child", "children" and "birth" do not appear a single time in the Court's opinion in Loving v. Virginia.

[Escriva]

Of course not. Do you seriously think that would be a possibility, or are you just doing your usual internet game where you try to deflect attention from the fact that Obama finally did the right thing, and it gets you all pissy like a petulant five-year old? Can't wait for a .gif to follow in your response from my favorite one trick pony.

There were calls to move the convention, and a petition that had tens of thousands of signatures as of yesterday morning.

[Escriva]

The words "procreation", "child", "children" and "birth" do not appear a single time in the Court's opinion in Loving v. Virginia.

Read the cases they cite to and quote. No matter how much misdirection you use, it remains a fact that procreation is the rationale for civil marriage recognized by the courts. They may change, and decided that the new rationale is "giveaways to left wing interest groups," but that isnt what it is yet.

[naked_bongo]

There were calls to move the convention, and a petition that had tens of thousands of signatures as of yesterday morning.

Oh wow! You mean it's in the thousands!!!

It's completely naive to believe the convention would ever move.

[TahoeHorn]

With the North Carolina vote, are the Democrats planning to move their convention out of Charlotte?

That FUBAR would be hysterical. I can see some DNC flunkees, furious with their bosses, scrambling madly to redo in three months what took maybe four years to do the first time. I can see all the conventioneers rejuggling their summer plans. It totally fits my idea of the priorities of the Democratic Party. I'm no expert on planning big events but you don't have to be to get a sense of that FUBAR.

[wildcat09]

Look- I already covered this when I talked about scrutiny argument. If they call it a compelling state interest (ordering procreation) than they apply very little scrutiny and ask if it's rationally related, which just about every single law that even touches on a subject it purports to regulate is found. It's all about the scrutiny test, and I think that these laws would be found to be rationally related (again, not best, or least invasive- which is what is needed to pass a heightened scrutiny test).

You botched this part up bad. They don't start off by determining what kind of interest the state has. They start by looking at the class being categorized, or the rights being implicated. If it's a fundamental right being restricted, or a suspect class being discriminated against, then the government must demonstrate a compelling state interest in doing so and the means effected must be narrowly tailored to meet that interest. If there are no suspect classes (or quasi-suspect) or fundamental rights implicated, then all the government requires is a legitimate government interest and means that are rationally related to achieving it.

While gays have never been considered a suspect class by the courts, they meet many of the traits of suspect classes (immutable characteristic subject to a history of discrimination) and the Court has shown a willingness to protect them to a degree under rational basis review. There's also the argument that any discrimination against gay marriage should be subject to strict scrutiny because the Court has declared marriage a fundamental right, as well as the argument that it should be subject to intermediate scrutiny because it effectively discriminates based on gender.

[FondrenRoad]

You botched this part up bad. They don't start off by determining what kind of interest the state has. They start by looking at the class being categorized, or the rights being implicated. If it's a fundamental right being restricted, or a suspect class being discriminated against, then the government must demonstrate a compelling state interest in doing so and the means effected must be narrowly tailored to meet that interest. If there are no suspect classes (or quasi-suspect) or fundamental rights implicated, then all the government requires is a legitimate government interest and means that are rationally related to achieving it.

While gays have never been considered a suspect class by the courts, they meet many of the traits of suspect classes (immutable characteristic subject to a history of discrimination) and the Court has shown a willingness to protect them to a degree under rational basis review. There's also the argument that any discrimination against gay marriage should be subject to strict scrutiny because the Court has declared marriage a fundamental right, as well as the argument that it should be subject to intermediate scrutiny because it effectively discriminates based on gender.

You know these threads always bring out the corporate contract lawyers to weigh in on constitutional law and civil rights law. Washpark used to do it too before he started talking in only gifs.

[phdhorn]

First, Obama reiterated that this was just a personal opinion, whether expectations are raised or not. He emphasized that he still felt that this is a states' issue and he plans no action, executive orders or whatnot on it.

Second, Congress will not address anything on this since it would never pass, for at least 5 years, if they even gauge (incorrectly) that the Constitution in any way regards this as a Federal issue.

Third, any challenge to states' laws as a whole through the courts would again take years.

This is not much different than a President saying he's personally opposed to abortion. Makes certain groups happy, but nothing comes out of it.

[Cape Codder]

That's how it went down for me in my first marriage as a christian non-catholic marrying a catholic.

You don't even need to be a Christian to have it recognized. I am not a Christian and my wife is a confirmed Catholic, and our wedding took place in a Catholic church and is recognized by the Catholic church.

[LongestHorn]

'Bout Time

[TahoeHorn]

One of the interesting subplots to this will be how it affects other Dem politicos.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/167820...t-gay-marriage

Dems have long engaged in doublespeak on the topic. Obama's incomprehensible attempt to straddle the fence was just one of many. Now I suspect that fence-straddling may face more scrutiny, and be more difficult to sustain. It will be particularly interesting if Obama loses this election.

[wildcat09]

One of the interesting subplots to this will be how it affects other Dem politicos.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/167820...t-gay-marriage

Dems have long engaged in doublespeak on the topic. Obama's incomprehensible attempt to straddle the fence was just one of many. Now I suspect that fence-straddling may face more scrutiny, and be more difficult to sustain. It will be particularly interesting if Obama loses this election.

I wouldn't be surprised to see them lose some blue dogs from the House over this.

[FondrenRoad]

One of the interesting subplots to this will be how it affects other Dem politicos.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/167820...t-gay-marriage

Dems have long engaged in doublespeak on the topic. Obama's incomprehensible attempt to straddle the fence was just one of many. Now I suspect that fence-straddling may face more scrutiny, and be more difficult to sustain. It will be particularly interesting if Obama loses this election.

It will become a solid Dem position with Reps straddling the fence on the topic. This issue will barely be a factor in this election. If Obama loses, it will have nothing to do with his support of gay marriage.

[H34TX]

a month ago, I thought BO had this election solidly. Now I'm not sure at all with the sputtering economy and now THIS. Damn, what a foolish mistake. I heard he won NC by 14,000 votes in 2008, now that's gone. There's a more than outside chance that this meaningless 'heroic' stance cost him the Presidency.

[TahoeHorn]

It will become a solid Dem position with Reps straddling the fence on the topic. This issue will barely be a factor in this election. If Obama loses, it will have nothing to do with his support of gay marriage.

That is one of the plausible scenarios. Also plausible is that parts of purple states aren't ready for this, and it costs Dems a few points there.

The Nation is about the most reliable voice for left-wing thinking there is. The linked article seems to think, as I do, that the issue is unclear. Let's watch the seven Dems discussed in the article. If you're correct they will soon follow Obama's lead. If I'm correct they'll carefully study the tea leaves from the election.

[Escriva]

Oh wow! You mean it's in the thousands!!!

It's completely naive to believe the convention would ever move.

I didn't say it would move. I don't think it will (though Dems are big into boycotts because they are intolerant of people different than they are). You seemed to be accusing washpark of fabricating this out of thin air. He wasn't.

[wildcat09]

I didn't say it would move. I don't think it will (though Dems are big into boycotts because they are intolerant of people different than they are). You seemed to be accusing washpark of fabricating this out of thin air. He wasn't.

Jesus $#@!ing christ, how can you see anything with that enormous plank in your eye?

[Escriva]

Tahoe,

As an extension on your point, if Repubs are smart, they'll press the advantage, and try to get black pols to switch at the local and state levels. Doubt this issue alone would do it, but in NC and other Southern states, it might be enough to get across the goal line. Tell a back-bencher Dem from a black district in NC that he's welcome in the GOP, in the majority for the first time post-reconstruction. He can have more clout in the majority than the minority, AND get the ministers off his back.

A big fish like Art Davis, who seems to be itchin' for a switchin' already, would be a bonus.

[Not My Real Name]

Obama got huge numbers from young folks in 2008 and it's been widely accepted that he'd be hard pressed to do as well as an incumbent. I can see him using the demographic breakdown of the North Carolina vote as a means to help get out the youth vote: "See, this is what happens when young people stay home and let the seniors decide elections."

[Wulaw Horn]

You botched this part up bad. They don't start off by determining what kind of interest the state has. They start by looking at the class being categorized, or the rights being implicated. If it's a fundamental right being restricted, or a suspect class being discriminated against, then the government must demonstrate a compelling state interest in doing so and the means effected must be narrowly tailored to meet that interest. If there are no suspect classes (or quasi-suspect) or fundamental rights implicated, then all the government requires is a legitimate government interest and means that are rationally related to achieving it.

While gays have never been considered a suspect class by the courts, they meet many of the traits of suspect classes (immutable characteristic subject to a history of discrimination) and the Court has shown a willingness to protect them to a degree under rational basis review. There's also the argument that any discrimination against gay marriage should be subject to strict scrutiny because the Court has declared marriage a fundamental right, as well as the argument that it should be subject to intermediate scrutiny because it effectively discriminates based on gender.

You are correct as to the first step. Are you really trying to argue that picking what scrutiny to use is not a results oriented exercize for the court? That was my point- and yes, if the gays aren't a suspect class, which as you rightly pointed out they have not been treated as such by the courts to this point then the analysis goes exactly the way I said it does- which is looking at state interest and then applying their test. Like I said- I don't think the court is going to uphold those laws, if they ever get before the court, but to say that there is no argument to do so is not intellectually honest- there is one, and giving special treatment to homosexuals, would be a departure for the court.

Put another way, playing a hypothetical the court can say that gays do not get special treatment b/c they chose to be gay (I'm not arguing this is true- simply saying that the court could argue it) thus differentiating them from women or minorities who did not choose to be that way. That's an argument that I've heard many people advance (you choose your sexual orientation) and that makes them much less likely to be given special treatment by the court if that argument is believed.

Again, as I've stated on here many times, and in real life to friends and the wife yesterday, I have no problem with the government allowing Gay's to marry, and I don't like the Religous Right wing of the Republican party b/c I have enough of a libertarian streak to me that if it doesn't harm someone else I don't give a $#@! what you do.

[Wulaw Horn]

You don't even need to be a Christian to have it recognized. I am not a Christian and my wife is a confirmed Catholic, and our wedding took place in a Catholic church and is recognized by the Catholic church.

I can't speak to that but I take your word for it.

[TahoeHorn]

Escriva,

I think the GOP should stay away from the issue and focus on the economy, for several reasons. First, the economy is going to decide this election, and the issue is a GOP strong point. Play it. Second, the gay marriage issue is tricky politically for both parties. Generally speaking tricky issues are best left alone. Third, long term, the GOP position is a loser. Right now the Dems are in the box, with fence straddling issues. Eight years from now the GOP will be in the box. The GOP shouldn't try to build a coalition on melting ice.

[Wulaw Horn]

You know these threads always bring out the corporate contract lawyers to weigh in on constitutional law and civil rights law. Washpark used to do it too before he started talking in only gifs.

I suppse this was directed at me, and you are correct that I'm not a constitutional law lawyer (I think there are about 12 of those nationwide but whatever), but my only contention is, that this is far from a decided issue, and I happen to agree, as I've said 20 times recently, that I think the court strikes this down.

But, I can guarantee you that if you found one of those 12 constitutional law lawyers that practice there they would agree with me that this is far from a settled issue, that for the court to decide that the laws are unconstitutional would require a walk back of present law, and that the proponents of laws prohibitting same sex marriage are not without arguments, which is the ONLY point I'm making here- to disagree with those that act like it's settled law or there are no arguments against it.

Or, put another way, if you think there aren't any arguments supporting the prohibition than I suspect that you will be just as surprised as many on the left were by the oral arguments in the Obamacare case. It's far from settled law that the prohibition is illegal, and in fact the law on point in the SC would seem to indicate that there are real arguments for upholding the law- but I think that they will vote to stike them down.

Fair enough?

[Wulaw Horn]

Escriva,

I think the GOP should stay away from the issue and focus on the economy, for several reasons. First, the economy is going to decide this election, and the issue is a GOP strong point. Play it. Second, the gay marriage issue is tricky politically for both parties. Generally speaking tricky issues are best left alone. Third, long term, the GOP position is a loser. Right now the Dems are in the box, with fence straddling issues. Eight years from now the GOP will be in the box. The GOP shouldn't try to build a coalition on melting ice.

Totally agree on all points.

[wildcat09]

You are correct as to the first step. Are you really trying to argue that picking what scrutiny to use is not a results oriented exercize for the court? That was my point- and yes, if the gays aren't a suspect class, which as you rightly pointed out they have not been treated as such by the courts to this point then the analysis goes exactly the way I said it does- which is looking at state interest and then applying their test. Like I said- I don't think the court is going to uphold those laws, if they ever get before the court, but to say that there is no argument to do so is not intellectually honest- there is one, and giving special treatment to homosexuals, would be a departure for the court.

Put another way, playing a hypothetical the court can say that gays do not get special treatment b/c they chose to be gay (I'm not arguing this is true- simply saying that the court could argue it) thus differentiating them from women or minorities who did not choose to be that way. That's an argument that I've heard many people advance (you choose your sexual orientation) and that makes them much less likely to be given special treatment by the court if that argument is believed.

Again, as I've stated on here many times, and in real life to friends and the wife yesterday, I have no problem with the government allowing Gay's to marry, and I don't like the Religous Right wing of the Republican party b/c I have enough of a libertarian streak to me that if it doesn't harm someone else I don't give a $#@! what you do.

I'm pretty sure the Court would not consider scrutinizing discrimination against gays as "special treatment," considering they expressly disclaimed that doing so is any kind of special treatment in Romer v. Evans, which was authored by Kennedy. I don't think he's going to change his mind on that one.

I don't disagree that the analysis is frequently results oriented. I was simply pointing out that you were misapplying the compelling state interest and rational review concepts.

[Michael Knight]

[Mizzou415]

Read the cases they cite to and quote. No matter how much misdirection you use, it remains a fact that procreation is the rationale for civil marriage recognized by the courts. They may change, and decided that the new rationale is "giveaways to left wing interest groups," but that isnt what it is yet.

The only case cited to by the Court in Loving that involved marriage was Naim v. Naim, which the Court expressly disapproved, in which the Virginia Supreme Court held:

We are unable to read in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, or in any other provision of that great document, any words or any intendment which prohibit the State from enacting legislation to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens, or which denies the power of the State to regulate the marriage relation so that it shall not have a mongrel breed of citizens. We find there no requirement that the State shall not legislate to prevent the obliteration of racial pride, but must permit the corruption of blood even though it weaken or destroy the quality of its citizenship

[FondrenRoad]

That is one of the plausible scenarios. Also plausible is that parts of purple states aren't ready for this, and it costs Dems a few points there.

The Nation is about the most reliable voice for left-wing thinking there is. The linked article seems to think, as I do, that the issue is unclear. Let's watch the seven Dems discussed in the article. If you're correct they will soon follow Obama's lead. If I'm correct they'll carefully study the tea leaves from the election.

The current outlook is a bit muddled, but the direction is clear. 20 years from now there will be zero elected officials who are openly anti-gay marriage. The topic also has almost zero importance for swing voters. Most of those who would vote based on this issue have already effectively cast their vote.

[NameAlreadyInUse]

50, 42, 38 and 19. And I'm sorry for being unclear, I've been shifting from future to present. My point in that post was I don't know if it helps him in the present, and it could certainly hurt him.

No argument. I was only talking about future state here, and by future i'm talking 20-30 years down the road. I doubt any of those women were at one time in favor and have changed their minds. My expectation is that for 99% of the people who are in favor today, they'll continue to be in favor 20-30 years from now, regardless of whether or not they become more conservative on other issues. That's all I'm saying here.

[wildcat09]

The current outlook is a bit muddled, but the direction is clear. 20 years from now there will be zero elected officials who are openly anti-gay marriage. The topic also has almost zero importance for swing voters. Most of those who would vote based on this issue have already effectively cast their vote.

That's a little optimistic. Are you expecting SEC country to secede before then?

[FondrenRoad]

That's a little optimistic. Are you expecting SEC country to secede before then?

No, but I expect their elected officials will stop openly opposing it. The same way they aren't supporting separate but equal and things like that now, whether they believe them or not.

[Escriva]

Tahoe,

I agree with you at the macro level. Romney should handle the issue the way he did yesterday: say it's a state issue, and then challenge reporters to ask him about the "important issues" if they persist. But the GOP's long term demographic deficit isn't tied to an issue; it's tied to lack of support within the black and Hispanic communities. Reversing that starts at the bottom, not with a top down approach.

At the local/state levels, we need to play whatever card gets us in the door.

[Wulaw Horn]

I'm pretty sure the Court would not consider scrutinizing discrimination against gays as "special treatment," considering they expressly disclaimed that doing so is any kind of special treatment in Romer v. Evans, which was authored by Kennedy. I don't think he's going to change his mind on that one.

I don't disagree that the analysis is frequently results oriented. I was simply pointing out that you were misapplying the compelling state interest and rational review concepts.

More like skipped a step. The only point of disagreement I have with anyone on this whole thing is those that say that the other side doesn't have an argument. It clearly does. Hell, Scalia wrote a pretty scathing dissent in Romer, did he not? And if I remember correctly he wasn't the only one who voted against Romer, and that's way closer to the peak of the hill than the bottom if you are arguing slippery slope.

[Wulaw Horn]

No argument. I was only talking about future state here, and by future i'm talking 20-30 years down the road. I doubt any of those women were at one time in favor and have changed their minds. My expectation is that for 99% of the people who are in favor today, they'll continue to be in favor 20-30 years from now, regardless of whether or not they become more conservative on other issues. That's all I'm saying here.

We agree there.

[washparkhorn]

I have never waivered in my support of gay rights. Hell, as a young pup, I was one of the hundreds of attorneys that worked to have Amendment 2 in Colorado overturned.

But I also remember that despite the efforts of good folks in Colorado to overturn the Amendment, the New York Times and Hollywood led a boycott of the state. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/21/op...o-boycott.html

The baby film industry died in Colorado.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. It's time for the Democrats to move their Convention.

[clear lake horn]

Newsflash!

We have a $#@!ty economy and crippling deficits. I guess this is another in a long line of distractions to keep from talking about Obama's abysmal record on the economy.

[wildcat09]

Newsflash!

We have a $#@!ty economy and crippling deficits. I guess this is another in a long line of distractions to keep from talking about Obama's abysmal record on the economy.

Dems wouldn't be able to use these issuesas a distraction if the Republicans weren't always so eager to make them the biggest issues.

[washparkhorn]

Newsflash!

We have a $#@!ty economy and crippling deficits. I guess this is another in a long line of distractions to keep from talking about Obama's abysmal record on the economy.

Agree, that is the big issue. But, we should never waiver in keeping the government out relationships between 2 consenting adults, especially when government intrudes in so much of our lives that those relationships are severely affected when there is discrimination.

And I think Biden gaffed on this issue, which is why it is an issue. He isn't fit for office. Obama didn't move that far (it's up to the states).