TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime (via Mowser)

Reaction to CA Court's Overturning Gay Marriage Ban | 71 comments (71 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Am I missing something? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by NWHiker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:32:40 AM EST

Similar bland statements from BO and HRC, but Clinton's says: "As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level."

Does this mean she is planning, if elected (yeah, well...) on allowing stuff like immigration rights, social security benefits, IRS filing etc? That would be progress, wouldn't it?

IIRC from an interview she did, (none / 0) (#18)
by eleanora on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:36:46 AM EST

Hillary wants to leave part of DOMA intact and only repeal the part that says the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages. If she can do that, then the states will allow marriages or civil unions or not as they please, and the federal gov't will have to grant them all the rights accruing to married couples. If you just repeal DOMA outright as Obama wants to do, she thinks that will bring a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriages or unions completely, no matter what the states want.

[ Parent ]

Thank you... (none / 0) (#21)
by NWHiker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:51:29 AM EST

... for the explanation.

Alas, I see her point about a constitutional amendment. That would truly be revolting. I wonder if it would pass, though?

I really wish we could just move to civil ceremonies for everyone and let marriage be performed, for those who want it, by the clergy person of their choice.

[ Parent ]

Agreed, Hillary is out in front on this. (none / 0) (#27)
by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:05:20 AM EST

Protection of civil rights at a federal level trumps the uneven or non-existent protections that may, or may not, be enacted at a state level. This holds true whether we're talking about reproductive choice or marriage/civil unions for people in the LGBT community (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender - that's the most accurate and inclusive term).

The GOP poses the issue as a threat to the values of the people who are the "back-bone" of the country: down-home average Joes, hard-working Americans. The kind of folks who are now Hillary's base; which is, incidentally, inclusive of the full spectrum of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and age.

Hillary may be uniquely positioned to lay the whole gay-baiting issue to rest once and for all. She could make a populist case to her base; about how the GOP uses this kind of wedge issue to detract from the socio-economic issues that most afflict working class folks and the middle class.

The GOP talks about a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage so that they don't have to address, or remedy, the problems of health care, job loss, crumbling infrastructure, deficiencies in the educational system, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

The bottom line, restricting the civil rights of folks in the LGBT community is a ruse that enables the GOP to perpetuate the real problems that affect a majority of 'average' Americans. Call this realization enlightened self-interest. In the GE, it could pay dividends for all concerned.

[ Parent ]

Normally would agree.. (none / 0) (#28)
by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:13:55 AM EST

...but she says she is opposed to marriage rights for religious reasons. As does Obama. I'm not giving either one a free pass on this. And this is coming from someone who doesn't care if you call it marriage or civil unions or anything else.

Gay and lesbian voters are less reliable than African-American or (if I remember correctly) Jewish voters. There's a reason for that.

BTW, arguing about Senator Clinton's base is probably not going to get you anywhere with LGBT donors. Maybe in the GE it makes sense to decry "SF Democrat elitist politicians," but to a lot of those voters that amounts to gay baiting. I'm not convinced they'll back Clinton over McCain, given the chance to influence the GOP.

[ Parent ]

Gay Support for Hillary (none / 0) (#30)
by Beth on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:54:08 AM EST

I'm not convinced they'll back Clinton over McCain, given the chance to influence the GOP.

You aren't certain gay people will vote for Clinton over McCain?!?

She's gotten support from orgs like HRC and endorsements from major gay newspapers. At least within the lesbian community, I'd say she's much more popular than Obama these days (though I may be biased). I wouldn't worry too much about this...

[ Parent ]

You're right... (none / 0) (#31)
by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:04:57 AM EST

...stupid comment. I don't think those voters would respond more favorably to either Democratic candidate, if they are running against McCain.

Sorry, my comment was ill-informed. I think that Senator Clinton enjoys a higher and more pervasive gay support network than Obama is likely to see. This primary is depriving me of sleep and reason.

The only issue I take exception to: HRC support. HRC has proved itself to be one of the most ineffectual orgnanizations out there, particularly with what happened at the CA supreme court today. And Jim Neal. Still very bitter about what they did.

That being said, McCain is really attractive to a lot of gay white men. You know, the self-hating ones that number in the thousands.

[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#32)
by facta non verba on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:31:06 AM EST

I don't vote my sexuality, do you vote yours?

Gay issues are important to me and yes they have an influence on my decision but there is so much more than I have to consider.

On your larger point, however, I think you are correct. It is not that they are not reliable, it is more than they don't vote. I would say at least half of gay men don't vote nor participate in the political process. It is an eternal frustration for me. I tell than politics matters and that they should care about politics even only if that means voting because if they don't pay attention to politics then politics can happen to them.

I have a good friend, Jeremy, here in SF from Iowa originally. He owns two homes there. He is early 30s now. He has won a Grammy. He is a tenor in a choral group. He has never voted in his life. Well-educated, articulate, well-travelled. Not one vote.

[ Parent ]

So............. (none / 0) (#69)
by SueBonnetSue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:20:23 AM EST

Gays are just like everyone else. Younger people don't vote, regardless of who they take to bed with them.

[ Parent ]

I missed something-- (none / 0) (#41)
by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:26:21 AM EST

I thought she had said pretty much what CA did--no church or preacher could be forced to ordain a gay marriege. So far as I know, neither of those entities can be forced to perform any marriage, not should they be. Enlightened churches can be found if gay marriage is not forbidden (UCC, actually, for one). It would just be needful for other churches to not go around loudly proclaiming that a certain is couple is not really married, just evil.

[ Parent ]

Foxhole, well said (none / 0) (#48)
by Kathy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:59:50 AM EST

I would only add that desegregation was successfully pushed through by the federal government vis-a-vis the military and federal hiring practices as well. I don't think the fed gov should mess with states rights (what a nightmare that would be) but I think they can make sure that they serve as an example. Last I checked, the fed gov was one of if not the largest employer.

Hey, do y'all remember when America used to serve as a shining example of freedom and democracy to the world?

[ Parent ]

The federal extension is very (none / 0) (#40)
by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:19:43 AM EST

important. Altho' my son is legally married in MA, the couple cannot file joint tax returns. And since the federal return is basic to other legalities, that is major. And I am sure there are other federal issues as well--maybe school loans, who knows what else.

[ Parent ]

The cruelest impact is upon binational gay couples (none / 0) (#54)
by Mark Woods on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:32:41 AM EST

Not having federal 'married' status forces numerous gay couples to be separated or to live in a third country that is friendly to gays, often Canada or in Europe.

This means gays often have to choose between caring for aging parents in the U.S. and seldom seeing family OR being ripped apart as a couple because their only choice is to flee the U.S. in order to remain together:

"A preliminary study of the 2000 census by demographer Gary Gates at the Williams Project on gay studies at the UCLA, found that 6 percent of the 594, 391 same-sex unmarried partners that were counted included one citizen and one non-citizen."

"That would indicate more than 35,000 same-sex bi-national couples living in the United States at the time of the census." (SF Chronicle -- Wednesday, June 22, 2005)

[ Parent ]

Reaction to CA Court's Overturning Gay Marriage Ban | 71 comments (71 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

Contributors

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Stats