What bullshit from the Obama administration! (highlighted in red)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2010 2:02 PM GMT
    "UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Economic and Social Council voted Monday to accredit the U.S.-based International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission after strong lobbying by the Obama administration.

    Obama, in a statement issued by the White House, welcomed the vote as an "important step forward for human rights." With the group's inclusion, he said "the United Nations is closer to the ideals on which it was founded, and to values of inclusion and equality to which the United States is deeply committed."

    The group will now be able to attend U.N. meetings, submit statements and collaborate with both government and U.N. agencies on human rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, commission officials said. ... "

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/19/AR2010071903656.html?hpid=moreheadlines

    Deeply committed? ...for whom? ...for the rest of the world to do?... the US isnt dedicated to inclusion or equality in the least. ... icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2010 2:18 PM GMT
    Aren't we cranky today? I've been disappointed myself in the slow pace of the Obama Administration's efforts regarding GLBT issues in the US. But I also understand they are making tactical political decisions based on fierce Republican opposition to all gay rights.

    This is an issue on which Republicans won the Presidency in 2004, making gays the scapegoats for everything wrong with America, and they'll do it again if given an opportunity. That's why Democrats have to tread lightly and be low profile with advancing gay rights. Republicans will crucify Democrats on a gay cross again if they have the opportunity.

    Even so, Obama has certainly done more than Bush for us, who moved us backward, and made us the bad guys in his reelection campaign. Is the reality in the US today shown in the quote you provided in red? Of course not, neither about gays nor about many things.

    But as a statement of intent it is important. It establishes policy, that future US administrations will be challenged upon if they deviate from it. I take it to be as much a statement of principles as reality. Optimistic, no doubt, and literally untrue no doubt, but this is how you move forward, this is how you sway minds and make an ideal the real.

    And because of US lobbying, there is now a gay organization within the UN, for the first time ever! Let's celebrate that! YAY!!!!

    Do chill. You know I admire you a great deal here. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2010 2:47 PM GMT
    I guess we will know where we stand when the Obama administration appeals the recent Boston judgments against DOMA.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 20, 2010 2:53 PM GMT
    i note that SB's original posting has been removed from this thread (ONCE AGAIN).

    i am guessing wilton's apt, common sense, "Real World" reply shot him down SO severely that SB deleted it, in an (unsuccessfull) attempt to avoid looking foolish??? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2010 2:57 PM GMT
    rnch saidi note that SB's original posting has been removed from this thread (ONCE AGAIN).

    i am guessing wilton's apt, common sense, "Real World" reply shot him down SO severely that SB deleted it, in an (unsuccessfull) attempt to avoid looking foolish??? icon_rolleyes.gif


    What did SB say here?
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jul 20, 2010 3:21 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rnch saidi note that SB's original posting has been removed from this thread (ONCE AGAIN).

    i am guessing wilton's apt, common sense, "Real World" reply shot him down SO severely that SB deleted it, in an (unsuccessfull) attempt to avoid looking foolish??? icon_rolleyes.gif

    Nope.... I haven't weighed in on this topic yet.
    my mistake and apology, SB.... i confused you with the thread starter. one day i will learn to be fully caffinated before i reply on this site! icon_redface.gif
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Jul 20, 2010 4:06 PM GMT
    Wilton -

    Thanks. We need also to remember that changes take time, and that politics is the art of compromise. Only extremists think "winner take all" makes good policy, and that usually leads to something pretty dreadful. We need also to remember that Obama is constrained by the need to make fundamental changes, not quick-fixes, and we need to remember as well that his every step is blocked by the opposition (I almost said "by the obstruction").

    Frankly, I'm very glad we have an intelligent, humane and hard-working guy in the White House. Even more so, when I think about what we almost had...

    I wouldn't have the guy's job - but I'm glad he's the one who has it!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2010 4:18 PM GMT
    rnch said
    southbeach1500 said
    rnch saidi note that SB's original posting has been removed from this thread (ONCE AGAIN).

    i am guessing wilton's apt, common sense, "Real World" reply shot him down SO severely that SB deleted it, in an (unsuccessfull) attempt to avoid looking foolish??? icon_rolleyes.gif

    Nope.... I haven't weighed in on this topic yet.
    my mistake and apology, SB.... i confused you with the thread starter. one day i will learn to be fully caffinated before i reply on this site! icon_redface.gif

    Yeah, I was just responding to Caslon, the OP, nothing involving SB. But gentlemanly reply on your part made subsequently.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2010 4:20 PM GMT
    tazzari said wouldn't have the guy's job - but I'm glad he's the one who has it!

    Actually, truth be told, I would rather have seen Hillary in the White House. But she's doing a brilliant job as Secy of State, so her talents are not being wasted. And a brave decision on Obama's part, to have selected his chief rival to hold the senior position in his cabinet. And then he retained Bush's Secy of Defense. That's a class act in my book. Too bad the Republicans in Congress don't have the same class, and don't desire to put the country first before Party.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jul 21, 2010 1:40 AM GMT
    How about a little common sense ?

    Very few politicians can get elected to national office promising equal rights to gays and lesbians.

    Republican Teabaggers and religious nuts would lose their favorite scapegoat for all the country's ills, if we had equal rights.

    We will get our equal rights in little pieces, from a majority of Democrats in the Congress and from a Democratic President.

    We will get full equal rights from the United States Supreme Court.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2010 1:55 AM GMT
    So misguided. Republicans are not against gay rights. They simply believe marriage is defined between a man and a woman. (which it is). Many Republicans (so does Obama by the way) support "civil unions" for gay people and "marriage" for straight. They are entitled to that opinion as long as the civil union provides gays with the same rights as marriages provide for straights
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2010 1:58 AM GMT
    I gotta admit, I understand where you're coming from on that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2010 1:58 AM GMT
    nycusa05 saidSo misguided. Republicans are not against gay rights. They simply believe marriage is defined between a man and a woman. (which it is). Many Republicans (so does Obama by the way) support "civil unions" for gay people and "marriage" for straight. They are entitled to that opinion as long as the civil union provides gays with the same rights as marriages provide for straights


    I do not care what it is called as long as we get the same rights. Personally, civil marriage should be abolished and all have civil unions. Marriage should be a religious vocation and we can then say we are not forcing religion to accept homosexuality...if all were civil unions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2010 2:01 AM GMT
    nycusa05 saidSo misguided. Republicans are not against gay rights. They simply believe marriage is defined between a man and a woman. (which it is). Many Republicans (so does Obama by the way) support "civil unions" for gay people and "marriage" for straight. They are entitled to that opinion as long as the civil union provides gays with the same rights as marriages provide for straights


    I will agree with that only to the point that marriage was never actually "defined" as being between a man and a woman until gay people asked for the same privilege.

    I agree.. I'm not twisted on the semantics, and a civil union license or by some other name granting 100% of the same "rights" is certainly acceptable to me. I never even considered the issue until all the nutcases began screaming I couldn't get married, my reaction was "fuck YOU".

    I do believe there will eventually be marriage equality in this country, but that will never exist until DOMA is repealed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2010 2:02 AM GMT
    nycusa05 saidSo misguided. Republicans are not against gay rights. They simply believe marriage is defined between a man and a woman. (which it is). Many Republicans (so does Obama by the way) support "civil unions" for gay people and "marriage" for straight. They are entitled to that opinion as long as the civil union provides gays with the same rights as marriages provide for straights


    Uhh... this is not entirely true... especially in the South and Midwest. There are certainly moderate Republicans who feel as you described. But marriage is not exclusive to one man and one woman--I'm not sure which planet you live on. Moveover, fundamentalist religions SHOULD NOT hold control over civil marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2010 2:04 AM GMT
    agri_sci said
    nycusa05 saidSo misguided. Republicans are not against gay rights. They simply believe marriage is defined between a man and a woman. (which it is). Many Republicans (so does Obama by the way) support "civil unions" for gay people and "marriage" for straight. They are entitled to that opinion as long as the civil union provides gays with the same rights as marriages provide for straights


    I do not care what it is called as long as we get the same rights. Personally, civil marriage should be abolished and all have civil unions. Marriage should be a religious vocation and we can then say we are not forcing religion to accept homosexuality...if all were civil unions.


    Except... we have these people who preform marriage ceremonies called Justice of the Peace.

    Secular marriage IS still marriage. Religion does not have control over marriage completely any more. Welcome to the 21st century
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Jul 21, 2010 2:05 AM GMT
    nycusa05 saidSo misguided. Republicans are not against gay rights. They simply believe marriage is defined between a man and a woman. (which it is). Many Republicans (so does Obama by the way) support "civil unions" for gay people and "marriage" for straight. They are entitled to that opinion as long as the civil union provides gays with the same rights as marriages provide for straights


    actually, we learned in Brown v. Board of Education that this isn't true.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2010 2:12 AM GMT
    conscienti1984 said
    agri_sci said
    nycusa05 saidSo misguided. Republicans are not against gay rights. They simply believe marriage is defined between a man and a woman. (which it is). Many Republicans (so does Obama by the way) support "civil unions" for gay people and "marriage" for straight. They are entitled to that opinion as long as the civil union provides gays with the same rights as marriages provide for straights


    I do not care what it is called as long as we get the same rights. Personally, civil marriage should be abolished and all have civil unions. Marriage should be a religious vocation and we can then say we are not forcing religion to accept homosexuality...if all were civil unions.


    Except... we have these people who preform marriage ceremonies called Justice of the Peace.

    Secular marriage IS still marriage. Religion does not have control over marriage completely any more. Welcome to the 21st century


    Its all about the language. Justice of the Peace should perform either. However, I think calling a civil ceremony marriage is the root cause of this issue.

    It could be worse, In Israel there is no civil marriage in the country. Jews go to a Bet Din or a Rabbincal court. Muslims use their Sharia Courts and Christians go to their religious authority. Many Israelis get married in Cyprus because one of the partners is not halachalically Jewish. Israel recognizes all marriages performed abroad including civil unions. I have an issue with religion controlling marriage so I agree with some of you on that but the real issue is the language of it. Its like my mother always says: Its not WHAT you say but HOW you say it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2010 2:16 AM GMT
    nycusa05 saidSo misguided. Republicans are not against gay rights. They simply believe marriage is defined between a man and a woman. (which it is). Many Republicans (so does Obama by the way) support "civil unions" for gay people and "marriage" for straight. They are entitled to that opinion as long as the civil union provides gays with the same rights as marriages provide for straights


    I'd just like to point out that the constitution defines all MEN having been created equal. No point in the original does it say that women are equal to men. But amendments were made and women have the right to vote.
    My point is that we can't get hung up on the original definitions of things. You'll find that many words today do not have the same meaning as they did in the past. Also, the definition of marriage is technically, a religious one, later adopted into legal terms. Being as we are a "country of religious freedom" I don't think its very fair for us to use religious definitions of institutions in our laws.

    While I would be happy to see civil unions for gays as longs as it gave them the same rights as straights. I think its bullshit and really just like being spit on. If its about equality, it'd be called marriage. Point blank. No one is asking the Catholic church (just as an example) to change their dogma and permit gay marriages. But LEGALLY we need to be equal, giving a group of people a different label just to satisfy one group of people is not equality.

    I think you'll also find that gay republicans are very different than straight republicans. Also extremely conservative religious repulicans....are an entirely different breed all together. Its been my experience that when many people say republicans they are referring to the conservative religious type. They believe were are "freaks of nature". (((please dont assume that to be an all inclusive statement about anyone who is religious and/or republicanto make a blanket statement over that group would be as inadequate as to say that gay men like taking it in the bum, which clearly all do not.)))
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2010 2:18 AM GMT
    gzcreezy said
    nycusa05 saidSo misguided. Republicans are not against gay rights. They simply believe marriage is defined between a man and a woman. (which it is). Many Republicans (so does Obama by the way) support "civil unions" for gay people and "marriage" for straight. They are entitled to that opinion as long as the civil union provides gays with the same rights as marriages provide for straights


    I'd just like to point out that the constitution defines all MEN having been created equal. No point in the original does it say that women are equal to men. But amendments were made and women have the right to vote.
    My point is that we can't get hung up on the original definitions of things. You'll find that many words today do not have the same meaning as they did in the past. Also, the definition of marriage is technically, a religious one, later adopted into legal terms. Being as we are a "country of religious freedom" I don't think its very fair for us to use religious definitions of institutions in our laws.

    While I would be happy to see civil unions for gays as longs as it gave them the same rights as straights. I think its bullshit and really just like being spit on. If its about equality, it'd be called marriage. Point blank. No one is asking the Catholic church (just as an example) to change their dogma and permit gay marriages. But LEGALLY we need to be equal, giving a group of people a different label just to satisfy one group of people is not equality.

    I think you'll also find that gay republicans are very different than straight republicans. Also extremely conservative religious repulicans....are an entirely different breed all together. Its been my experience that when many people say republicans they are referring to the conservative religious type. They believe were are "freaks of nature". (((please dont assume that to be an all inclusive statement about anyone who is religious and/or republicanto make a blanket statement over that group would be as inadequate as to say that gay men like taking it in the bum, which clearly all do not.)))



    This gay religious republican thanks you! Thanks for being open minded as we ask other to be!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2010 3:52 AM GMT
    agri_sci said
    conscienti1984 said
    agri_sci said
    nycusa05 saidSo misguided. Republicans are not against gay rights. They simply believe marriage is defined between a man and a woman. (which it is). Many Republicans (so does Obama by the way) support "civil unions" for gay people and "marriage" for straight. They are entitled to that opinion as long as the civil union provides gays with the same rights as marriages provide for straights


    I do not care what it is called as long as we get the same rights. Personally, civil marriage should be abolished and all have civil unions. Marriage should be a religious vocation and we can then say we are not forcing religion to accept homosexuality...if all were civil unions.


    Except... we have these people who preform marriage ceremonies called Justice of the Peace.

    Secular marriage IS still marriage. Religion does not have control over marriage completely any more. Welcome to the 21st century


    Its all about the language. Justice of the Peace should perform either. However, I think calling a civil ceremony marriage is the root cause of this issue.

    It could be worse, In Israel there is no civil marriage in the country. Jews go to a Bet Din or a Rabbincal court. Muslims use their Sharia Courts and Christians go to their religious authority. Many Israelis get married in Cyprus because one of the partners is not halachalically Jewish. Israel recognizes all marriages performed abroad including civil unions. I have an issue with religion controlling marriage so I agree with some of you on that but the real issue is the language of it. Its like my mother always says: Its not WHAT you say but HOW you say it.


    I know you are a conservative Jew, But this is not Israel. Here in America, people of different religions have meshed in together fairly well as compared to other countries.

    Religious people should suck it up and realize that they no longer hold the power they once had. Religious folks (fundamentalists) are constantly attacking the church-state line.

    In 15-30 years this issue will no longer be an issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2010 4:24 AM GMT
    I've written this before, but I'll try again:

    NO church or other religious group can legally marry people on their own authority in the US. Marriage is a STATE institution, for which a marriage license from the State must be issued.

    What churches CAN do is perform a ceremony under authority delegated to them BY the State. One can have a church wedding in front of an altar, with the organ playing and all that other good stuff, but what is actually happening is a CIVIL wedding, at which the minister or priest or rabbi has been empowered to preside by the State.

    This is the point not understood by most Americans, and evidently not by some here. And the churches themselves like to perpetuate that error, that marriage is defined by them. It may be so for their respective congregations, but under law it is not. It is a civil ceremony, being performed in a church or other place of worship.

    Marriage is an institution of the government, and can be anything the government wants it to be. Whether or not a church wishes to participate in the ceremony is their decision.

    For instance, I believe the Roman Catholic Church may still decline to marry someone who had been divorced (rather than annulled), and can also refuse marriage of a Catholic to a non-Catholic, if the couple hasn't been granted a dispensation. Yet these same persons can still be married by the State before a Judge or a Justice of the Peace.

    So that this myth that marriage is the sole domain of religion is totally bogus. But it's a myth that is widespread, and leads to the misunderstanding that marriage is an instrument of churches, and is defined by them alone. Churches are in truth only the agents for the State regarding the performance of legal marriage ceremonies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2010 4:37 AM GMT
    rnch said
    southbeach1500 said
    rnch saidi note that SB's original posting has been removed from this thread (ONCE AGAIN).

    i am guessing wilton's apt, common sense, "Real World" reply shot him down SO severely that SB deleted it, in an (unsuccessfull) attempt to avoid looking foolish??? icon_rolleyes.gif

    Nope.... I haven't weighed in on this topic yet.
    my mistake and apology, SB.... i confused you with the thread starter. one day i will learn to be fully caffinated before i reply on this site! icon_redface.gif

    You're an idiot.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jul 21, 2010 7:46 AM GMT
    nycusa05 saidSo misguided. Republicans are not against gay rights. They simply believe marriage is defined between a man and a woman. (which it is). Many Republicans (so does Obama by the way) support "civil unions" for gay people and "marriage" for straight. They are entitled to that opinion as long as the civil union provides gays with the same rights as marriages provide for straights




    So ignorant.
    Show me one place in America where civil unions provide gays with the same rights as marriages provide for straights.

    I'll do you one better.
    Show me one place in America where GAY MARRIAGES provide gays with the same rights as marriages provide for straights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2010 8:04 AM GMT
    and why is this topic negative?