Well, yeah, sorta kinda, makes a good dodge. But even though marriage may be a “state issue”, equality is not. Very similar principle applies to voting rights, the states may conduct voting as they please, but the process must be equal, and only the Federal gov is in a position to insist.
Its perfectly cromulant.
Maybe, though is the National Dem platform specific to stuff they plan to pursue only at the federal level or a more general statement? I’d assumed the latter, so I’m not sure the “state issue” dodge really works in this particular case, at least to the extent that the Platform passed is seen to have the imprimatur of Obama.
Doesn’t mean I have to like it!
The platform, yes, but zoid was talking about what Obama’s position should be.
Just to be clear, I’m not advocating SSM as a state’s rights issue either way. I’m saying it’s strategically it’s the best position Obama could take to help SSM.
Sure, until something like Loving v. Virginia comes around and makes it a federal one.
But go on, do tell why you believe marriage should be a state issue.
See post 44. Or 43. We’re talking about what Obama’s position should be from a political standpoint. If SCOTUS rules SSM the law of the land, so be it.
The problem with this position is that marriage is used to determine how to treat adult partners under many federal laws. So you have to do something at the federal level to avoid discriminating against gay couples who happen to live in backwards states. If what you do is recognize as married those gay couples who marry where it is legal, even if they don’t reside there, then I guess you technically leave it a “state issue,” but not much of one.
The other problem is that since the 1950s, the federal government has taken on a role of fighting discrimination at the state level. It’s not clear to me that, even if it were desirable, there is a principled difference between sitting out the struggle over gay rights, and withdrawing from enforcement of other civil rights. Segregated marriage is as much a state issue as segregated schools.
Right. The Platform Committee is a place for each party to send its loudest, most obnoxious blowhard ideologues. It not only lets them feel important, it gets them out of the way of the people doing the *real *work. But nobody actually reads the damn things unless they’re looking for cheap points to tell themselves they’re scoring.
Cheap ducking there. Full faith and credit is not a state issue, and neither is equal protection. Nor, for that matter, are any of the other marriage-related federal laws. Nothing is a state issue except when the federal government has no interest in the matter, and that is very rarely the case. When Constitutional rights are the issue, as I do hope you know they are here, there is no room at all to raise the tired, anachronistic states-rights flag.
What shame? Gay marriage is an obviously strong angle of attack against Democrats in an election year. If you want to effect policy changes, the first thing you have to do is get elected, then take the risky stands after that.
Gay marriage equality is an excellent second-presidential-term issue. It’s not a very smart re-election plank.
There’s really nothing Obama can do other than try and get DOMA repealed. If SSM is going to be mandated, that’s going to come from the SCOTUS, and there are cases working there way up now. If states don’t want to grant marriage rights to same sex couples, the Executive Branch can’t force them to.
He’s already gotten rid of DODT, and that should be a big help in advancing the cause.
They might make noises, but in pretty much the same way the Republicans make noises about stuff like prayer in school or outlawing abortion. The Dems aren’t going to risk adopting gay marriage as a major plank until it’s clear that it not only won’t hurt them but will help them at the voting booth. Until and unless that happens it will just be talk, IMHO, or very small steps.
-XT
Well, of course. But the OP isn’t about what the executive branch can do unilaterally; the question is whether Obama and the Democratic Party should (or will) attempt to lead the country (and therefore Congress) on the issue. Congress could pass an anti-DOMA, defining marriage under federal law to include domestic partnerships, civil unions, and gay marriages entered into where legal. In your view, is such legislation inconsistent with your preferred divide between state and federal realms?
AFAICT, the GOP does everything it can do constitutionally to restrict abortion, including quite often passing legislation that is close enough to the line to be struck down as unconstitutional. It isn’t at all clear to me that politics, and not the Constitution, has been the limiting factor. I’m not sure what school prayer legislation would even look like that wouldn’t be facially unconstitutional, so I think the same sorta goes for that too.
Where is the official Republican ‘outlaw abortion’ plank? Which presidential candidates have come out in favor of outlawing abortion and are actively campaigning on that issue?
-XT
Uh, the 2008 platform calls for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. What more do you want?
Sheesh. I didn’t say it was my preferred divide. How many times do I have to say that:
I will point out here that when Andrew Cuomo was campaigning for governor, he outright said he supported legalizing same-sex marriage and said he would try to make it happen. You can do that and get elected in New York, but that’s New York. It’s unfortunate that national politics don’t allow the Democrats to go there - that’s partly to their discredit and partly to the discredit of millions of voters - but it should be obvious that they can’t. Their platform might be broadly supportive of gay rights, but it’s not going to go as far as saying they’ll try to make same-sex marriage legal nationally.
What about survivor’s benefits for deceased spouses on Social Security? Wouldn’t leaving it to the states mean that a legally married spouse in New York is entitled to those benefits. But not if they live in Mississippi? What if they are legally married in New York, but suddenly decide to move to Mississippi to open a charming little “bed and grits”? Where they are not legally married, and one of them dies?
Sooner or later, full faith and credit will have to be the standard, because nothing else is workable. The demands of church are strong, as are the demands of progress, but the demands of sensible record-keeping will trump all. By this somewhat sneaky route, fully recognized gay marriage can be ushered in through the back door. In a manner of speaking.
The “states rights” issue has the extra bonus of using the Right’s words against them.
I think you’ve misread me. You have no preferred divide between state and federal roles? It was just a genuine curious question, no need to sheesh.