Nope. As a liberal, I think Obama’s position on SSM is flat-out wrong and bigoted. Nothing OK about it. Depending on who runs in '12 and their positions on thie issues, it may be enough to make me vote for somebody else (though the likelihood of a serious Republican contender being pro-gay marriage seems absurd at this point). Nice try, though.
I doubt we’ll get a good alternative on that front in the next decade. Still, I’d rather vote for someone who may not really like us that much but is too polite to actually say something about it than vote for someone running for the party who’d more or less like us all to cease existing.
Well, I’m sure you’ll find resorting to Der Trihs level discourse will be very helpful.:rolleyes:
By that logic “marriage” should legally mean “the assignment of a woman as the property of a specific man”, just like the “good old days”. Like it or not the legal relationship defined by the word “marriage” has changed quite a bit over the years. Mostly for the better.
And sacrificing innocent people’s happiness, catering to bigotry just to preserve the meaning of a word is disgusting, anyway.
Let us not forget that Obama is a politician . . . currently the most successful one in the country. If he ever comes out in favor of SSM, it will be after the '12 election, whether he wins or not. Until then, he will continue to look like a bigot. And since we are not mind-readers, we have every reason to conclude that’s exactly what he is. But I agree that he shouldn’t be judged on this issue alone, no matter how important it is to some of us.
I’ve never heard anybody refer to their marriage this way nor do I think it represents Obama’s position.
Of course you haven’t. That’s 'cause the definition of marriage has (gasp!) changed considerably over the last two thousand years, and in ways that are far more fundamental than allowing gays in.
I dunno. So far as I can tell, the administration’s position is that DOMA is constitutional, but should be repealed. That’s an entirely consistent position to adopt, even if it’s one you might prefer the administration not take.
Beyond the fact that I have no idea what you’re talking about where do you see Obama’s position fitting in with marriage 2000 years ago?
I suspect the point is that arguments from definition are inherently flawed - if one accepts that definitions are inviolate, then the ancient definition should be the only one used, and if one rejects that definitions are inviolate, then why not make the change from “a close union of two people or things (and if they’re people, then they gotta be opposite-sexed)” to “a close union of two people or things”? There isn’t really a sensible middle position from which to argue for retaining the modern definition, at least not on respect for definitions alone.
Yes, that is the point I was trying to make. Definitions of words, especially the definition of something so arbitrary as a particular type of relationship change all the time. Why stop now, and declare this particular meaning to be the One True Meaning?
There’s nothing arbitrary about the word “marriage”.
While you may have a point as regards some partisan posters, I suspect the discrepancy is a bit more simple:
-
Magellan is quite explicit that his stance is that civil unions are acceptable but that gay marriage should not be legalized, on the basis of his understanding of the traditional definition and his desire not to dilute or amend it. Rightly or wrongly, a fair number of Dopers also have perceived him as hoomophobic and/or racist based on comments in a small number of posts.
-
Obama has, to the best of my knowledge, taken the stance that in his personal opinion, civil unions are acceptable but a marriage is properly between one man and one woman – BUT that his personal view should not be the basis of a public policy that deprives others of equal rights.
It’s a regulatory vs. libertarian distinction, not a left vs. right one. I may be wrong – and I’m not going to accuse Magellan of anything in GD (I’m stating my perception of others’ perceptions of his views, not making an allegation.) But that’s where I see the distinction that people are making.
Of course there is; it has been a wide variety of different arrangements throughout history.
Looks to more like it’s “There’s a possible argument that DOMA is constitutional, so we’re required to defend it, even though we think the argument that it isn’t is stronger.”
Yes, that’s the “fair and balanced” interpretation.
The “really quite horrible” interpretation is “We’re trying to play both sides of the debate simultaneously to avoid getting on the wrong side of either the proponents or opponents of gay marriage. When the issue is resolved, we can tell the winning side that we supported them all along while telling the losing side that we did what we could but our hands were tied by the system.”
Hmm.
I don’t see where you’re getting the idea that they have a choice in whether or not to defend the statute in court. The simultaneous statement that they oppose it should tell you all you need to know about their intentions.
The cynic in me says that if the administration doesn’t try too hard, the courts might declare it unconstitutional, the gay rights supporters will love the administration, and the opponents will blame “activist judges”. But if it somehow gets DOMA repealed, I’ll take it. I mean, for whatever reason, Congress can’t repeal DADT or pass ENDA, and those poll vastly better than repealing DOMA, from what I’ve seen.