Obama's speech - no equal rights for gays

  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Jan 25, 2012 7:08 AM GMT
    What I noticed in the speech, is that although he implored congress to do something about legalizing those downtrodden illegal aliens, he said nothing about giving equal immigration rights to gay citizens to unite with their partners or spouses. Why should any gay man give a fuck about the plight of illegal aliens, when he doesn't have the same immigration rights as other citizens? Or give any money or effort to get this guy re-elected? Maybe if Obama did not get re-elected because of no gay support, the next democrat who runs will support equal rights for gays.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 8:32 AM GMT
    If a party can take for granted the votes of any demographic, they will not be motivated to work for those votes. In this situation, there are core Democratic groups that don't favor gay marriage, so why jeopardize those votes if they don't need to?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 3:36 PM GMT
    Suetonious said, "What I noticed in the speech, is that although he implored congress to do something about legalizing those downtrodden illegal aliens, he said nothing about giving equal immigration rights to gay citizens to unite with their partners or spouses."

    Being that gay marriage etc is a State-by-State issue in your country, how could the federal government pull something like what you suggest?

    curious,

    -Doug
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Jan 25, 2012 4:49 PM GMT
    meninlove said Suetonious said, "What I noticed in the speech, is that although he implored congress to do something about legalizing those downtrodden illegal aliens, he said nothing about giving equal immigration rights to gay citizens to unite with their partners or spouses."

    Being that gay marriage etc is a State-by-State issue in your country, how could the federal government pull something like what you suggest?

    Easy. Immigration rights are totally controlled by the federal government, not by the states. There are a number of states and foreign countries that provide for same sex marriage or civil unions, and generally, anyone in the US can get married in one of those states (or most of the foreign countries), even if their state of residence would not recognize the marriage. The federal government and its immigration regulations could recognize the marriage, and thus admit partners of gay men on the same basis as it admits spouses of heterosexual marriages - that is, if the government did not choose to discriminate against gays.
    . And, there are lots of other rights that the federal government could grant to gay persons that heterosexuals now have, some even with the stroke of Obama's pen, if he did not intend to continue government discrimination against gay people.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Jan 25, 2012 4:54 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidIf a party can take for granted the votes of any demographic, they will not be motivated to work for those votes. In this situation, there are core Democratic groups that don't favor gay marriage, so why jeopardize those votes if they don't need to?

    Why indeed; and why then should gays support the democratic party presidential aspirations until it changes its views? Let the democrats lose out for an election cycle. I will not vote for Obama or donate to his campaign; (I won't vote for any republican, either.) If Obama does not support gay rights, why support him? There will be another democrat in another 4 years, who might act differently.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 4:55 PM GMT
    " The federal government and its immigration regulations could recognize the marriage.."

    Currently they can't, as gay marriage is not under federal regulation etc. Now, once your federal Supreme court says that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional and that gay marriage is legal, then I think the federal gov't can act.

    -Doug

    PS I think in cases where the married couple are trying to reside in a state where it IS legal, then I think the federal gov't could recognize the marriage under federal immigration rules.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 5:02 PM GMT
    To the OP: I think you need to examine our options here. First of all, please name a president who's done more for gay rights. Secondly, who exactly is there to choose from that is more on our side than Obama? I would also remind you that politics is a very delicate game....if he were to come out and demand what you're suggesting, he would automatically lose thousands upon thousands of supporters, which would then open the gate for one of the nice Republicans to enter, and I'm sure you don't want that. Although I certainly don't agree with a lot of Obama's choices, I think he's played the balancing game quite well, and doing a lot for gay rights while doing so. Until there's a better option, I'd count my blessings.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Jan 25, 2012 5:04 PM GMT
    meninlove said " The federal government and its immigration regulations could recognize the marriage.."

    Currently they can't, as gay marriage is not under federal regulation etc. Now, once your federal Supreme court says that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional and that gay marriage is legal, then I think the federal gov't can act.

    No the federal government cannot - now. In his speech, Obama was stating what he wanted in legislation. Congressional legislation could grant equal rights to gays. The point is, Obama isn't even going to ask the congress to adopt equal rights laws. For most immigration issues, it's really up to the congress. The court has a majority who do not believe in equal rights. Unless one of them suddenly dies, there won't be any change coming from this court. The leading neanderthals on the supreme court are young, appointed for life, and just appointed (unfortunately with the assistance of the timid democrats, who could have blocked their appointments.) They will dominate the court for a very long time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 5:13 PM GMT
    Most gay rights progress has come from Blue states, and the Courts.

    When you hear conservatives talk about "activist judges" this is code language, referring to judges like the ones in Iowa who ruled that Same Sex Marriages were legal under the law. The SCOTUS has 4 gay friendly (all there by Democrats) and 4 anti-gay (all there by Republicans) justices. Gingrich and Romney both openly promised to nominate anti-gay ones.

    Obama is extremely pro-gay where we need him most....Judicial nominations.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Jan 25, 2012 5:21 PM GMT
    Scruffypup saidTo the OP: I think you need to examine our options here. First of all, please name a president who's done more for gay rights. Secondly, who exactly is there to choose from that is more on our side than Obama? I would also remind you that politics is a very delicate game....if he were to come out and demand what you're suggesting, he would automatically lose thousands upon thousands of supporters, which would then open the gate for one of the nice Republicans to enter, and I'm sure you don't want that. Although I certainly don't agree with a lot of Obama's choices, I think he's played the balancing game quite well, and doing a lot for gay rights while doing so. Until there's a better option, I'd count my blessings.

    No president has done much of anything for gay rights. All Obama has done for gay rights is get "don't ask don't tell" eliminated, and that was going to happen anyway - by court decision. (Even when Obama was looking at eliminating "don't ask don't tell, he actually opposed the court actions that were seeking the same thing.) So gays are now allowed to die in foreign wars. However, even in the military, there are lots of rights that that gay soldiers do not have.

    "Secondly, who exactly is there to choose from that is more on our side than Obama?" Obama is not on our side. When he was an Illinois Senator, he said he was in favor of equal marriage rights for gays. When he ran for president, he announced that he opposed same-sex marriage; he has been true to his latter word. Quite a number of other democratic presidential hopefuls would have been pushing for gay rights. Unfortunately, we got Obama. Obama and the democrats could have achieved a lot of gay rights reforms in 2009, if they wanted to - even after the death of Kennedy, since Brown would have supported them. They had the power then, but they chose not to, like they chose not to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the billionaires when they had the power to do so. The point is, Obama didn't even try for equal rights for gays.
    . As to a republican winning the office - I don't care. We can survive four years of republican administration.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 5:27 PM GMT
    Suetonius said
    Scruffypup saidTo the OP: I think you need to examine our options here. First of all, please name a president who's done more for gay rights. Secondly, who exactly is there to choose from that is more on our side than Obama? I would also remind you that politics is a very delicate game....if he were to come out and demand what you're suggesting, he would automatically lose thousands upon thousands of supporters, which would then open the gate for one of the nice Republicans to enter, and I'm sure you don't want that. Although I certainly don't agree with a lot of Obama's choices, I think he's played the balancing game quite well, and doing a lot for gay rights while doing so. Until there's a better option, I'd count my blessings.

    No president has done much of anything for gay rights. All Obama has done for gay rights is get "don't ask don't tell" eliminated, and that was going to happen anyway - by court decision. (Even when Obama was looking at eliminating "don't ask don't tell, he actually opposed the court actions that were seeking the same thing.) So gays are now allowed to die in foreign wars. However, even in the military, there are lots of rights that that gay soldiers do not have.

    "Secondly, who exactly is there to choose from that is more on our side than Obama?" Obama is not on our side. When he was an Illinois Senator, he said he was in favor of equal marriage rights for gays. When he ran for president, he announced that he opposed same-sex marriage; he has been true to his latter word. Quite a number of other democratic presidential hopefuls would have been pushing for gay rights. Unfortunately, we got Obama. Obama and the democrats could have achieved a lot of gay rights reforms in 2009, if they wanted to - even after the death of Kennedy, since Brown would have supported them. They had the power then, but they chose not to, like they chose not to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the billionaires when they had the power to do so. The point is, Obama didn't even try for equal rights for gays.


    I think the reason he changed his tune on gay marriage is that delicate balance I was talking about. My guess is that he will do the things he was afraid to do once he gets his second and last term. But I could be wrong.


    "As to a republican winning the office - I don't care. We can survive four years of republican administration."


    Well, I can only imagine what your post will read like with President Newt!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 5:28 PM GMT
    Suetonius said
    Scruffypup saidTo the OP: I think you need to examine our options here. First of all, please name a president who's done more for gay rights. Secondly, who exactly is there to choose from that is more on our side than Obama? I would also remind you that politics is a very delicate game....if he were to come out and demand what you're suggesting, he would automatically lose thousands upon thousands of supporters, which would then open the gate for one of the nice Republicans to enter, and I'm sure you don't want that. Although I certainly don't agree with a lot of Obama's choices, I think he's played the balancing game quite well, and doing a lot for gay rights while doing so. Until there's a better option, I'd count my blessings.

    No president has done much of anything for gay rights. All Obama has done for gay rights is get "don't ask don't tell" eliminated, and that was going to happen anyway - by court decision. (Even when Obama was looking at eliminating "don't ask don't tell, he actually opposed the court actions that were seeking the same thing.) So gays are now allowed to die in foreign wars. However, even in the military, there are lots of rights that that gay soldiers do not have.

    "Secondly, who exactly is there to choose from that is more on our side than Obama?" Obama is not on our side. When he was an Illinois Senator, he said he was in favor of equal marriage rights for gays. When he ran for president, he announced that he opposed same-sex marriage; he has been true to his latter word. Quite a number of other democratic presidential hopefuls would have been pushing for gay rights. Unfortunately, we got Obama. Obama and the democrats could have achieved a lot of gay rights reforms in 2009, if they wanted to - even after the death of Kennedy, since Brown would have supported them. They had the power then, but they chose not to, like they chose not to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the billionaires when they had the power to do so. The point is, Obama didn't even try for equal rights for gays.
    . As to a republican winning the office - I don't care. We can survive four years of republican administration.


    But can we survive 4 years of Republican anti-gay SCOTUS nominations? Ones that will last for 40 years plus? Romney and Gingrich both promised to nominate justices who will strike down state Same Sex Marriages that already exist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 5:28 PM GMT
    Suetonius said
    socalfitness saidIf a party can take for granted the votes of any demographic, they will not be motivated to work for those votes. In this situation, there are core Democratic groups that don't favor gay marriage, so why jeopardize those votes if they don't need to?

    Why indeed; and why then should gays support the democratic party until it changes its views? Let the democrats lose out for an election cycle. I will not vote for Obama or donate to his campaign; (I won't vote for any republican, either.) If Obama does not support gay rights, why support him? There will be another democrat in another 4 years, who might act differently.


    rather pig headed. The republicans would be far far worse than Obama.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Jan 25, 2012 5:37 PM GMT
    White4DarkerFL saidVote for Obama because he will nominate gay friendly justices to the SCOTUS.

    Most gay rights progress has come from Blue states, and the Courts.

    The SCOTUS has 4 gay friendly (all there by Democrats) and 4 anti-gay (all there by Republicans) justices. Republican candidates openly promised to nominate anti-gay ones.

    Obama is extremely pro-gay where we need him most....Judicial nominations.

    Ginsburg is 78 with cancer, and is the only one who is likely to leave. She ought to resign this year. If not, then she is just too selfish for words. As to Obama's appointments - Sotomayor is not exactly a flaming liberal (because Obama is not either).- Who knows how she would rule on a gay rights issue when congress has ruled otherwise? And if Ginsburg lasted another couple years, I see no reason to hope that Obama would appoint a liberal judge. He is much more likely to appoint a moderate - middle of the road judge, who would be conservative on social issues like gay rights. Thus, there is no reason to hope that Obama will save gay rights 15 years from now by appointing the "right" judge, when he does nothing for gay rights when he can.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Jan 25, 2012 5:45 PM GMT
    Lostboy said
    Suetonius said
    socalfitness saidIf a party can take for granted the votes of any demographic, they will not be motivated to work for those votes. In this situation, there are core Democratic groups that don't favor gay marriage, so why jeopardize those votes if they don't need to?

    Why indeed; and why then should gays support the democratic party until it changes its views? Let the democrats lose out for an election cycle. I will not vote for Obama or donate to his campaign; (I won't vote for any republican, either.) If Obama does not support gay rights, why support him? There will be another democrat in another 4 years, who might act differently.


    rather pig headed. The republicans would be far far worse than Obama.

    Not really. The republicans would not adopt any polices that were anti-gay - they may just delay in relieving us of them - which is what Obama will do. And, you may not realize, that it was our famous Democrat, Clinton, who adopted the anti-gay policies we are now seeking to overturn and refused to attempt eliminating any discriminatory laws. There was no benefit in electing a Democrat then. You at least have the benefit of a system where when the prime minster wants a new policy, it becomes law. We do not. Our government changes hands between parties every election cycle (or more often these days every two election cycles). We can just wait out a cycle, and come back in with a better Democrat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 6:08 PM GMT
    Suetonius said
    White4DarkerFL saidVote for Obama because he will nominate gay friendly justices to the SCOTUS.

    Most gay rights progress has come from Blue states, and the Courts.

    The SCOTUS has 4 gay friendly (all there by Democrats) and 4 anti-gay (all there by Republicans) justices. Republican candidates openly promised to nominate anti-gay ones.

    Obama is extremely pro-gay where we need him most....Judicial nominations.

    Ginsburg is 78 with cancer, and is the only one who is likely to leave. She ought to resign this year. If not, then she is just too selfish for words. As to Obama's appointments - Sotomayor is not exactly a flaming liberal (because Obama is not either).- Who knows how she would rule on a gay rights issue when congress has ruled otherwise? And if Ginsburg lasted another couple years, I see no reason to hope that Obama would appoint a liberal judge. He is much more likely to appoint a moderate - middle of the road judge, who would be conservative on social issues like gay rights. Thus, there is no reason to hope that Obama will save gay rights 15 years from now by appointing the "right" judge, when he does nothing for gay rights when he can.



    Considering how Christian Right Wing blowhards opposed President Obama's nominations (Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor) for being too liberal....while Gingrich and Romney both promise an anti-gay litmus test for their SCOTUS nominations....your justification of attacking President Obama is the most baseless and without reason response I've ever read on this board. And believe me, that's saying a lot. So baseless and twisted, they belong in the Psycho Talk folder.

    Sotomayor: Senate confirmation 68 to 31.
    Kagan: Senate confirmation 63 to 37.

    All opposing votes came from right wing, anti-gay republicans. But if it gets you through the night, then hey...keep believing those rightwing voices spinning around in your pictureless head...lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 6:09 PM GMT
    Suetonius said
    Not really. The republicans would not adopt any polices that were anti-gay - they may just delay in relieving us of them - which is what Obama will do. And, you may not realize, that it was our famous Democrat, Clinton, who adopted the anti-gay policies we are now seeking to overturn and refused to attempt eliminating any discriminatory laws. There was no benefit in electing a Democrat then. You at least have the benefit of a system where when the prime minster wants a new policy, it becomes law. We do not. Our government changes hands between parties every election cycle (or more often these days every two election cycles). We can just wait out a cycle, and come back in with a better Democrat.


    Um. Yeah. I know how the USA system works. And while you wait for your mythical perfect democrat the republicans will try to undo the good things Obama did, stack the judicial system with extreme conservatives (the dems are presently center/conservative in their politics, the republicans extreme conservatives) and do everything else to fuck the country up longer term
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Jan 25, 2012 7:08 PM GMT
    Scruffypup saidTo the OP: I think you need to examine our options here. First of all, please name a president who's done more for gay rights. Secondly, who exactly is there to choose from that is more on our side than Obama? I would also remind you that politics is a very delicate game....if he were to come out and demand what you're suggesting, he would automatically lose thousands upon thousands of supporters, which would then open the gate for one of the nice Republicans to enter, and I'm sure you don't want that. Although I certainly don't agree with a lot of Obama's choices, I think he's played the balancing game quite well, and doing a lot for gay rights while doing so. Until there's a better option, I'd count my blessings.


    I agree. And Sullivan's article in last week's Newsweek shows how Obama has accomplished a great deal by taking a long-term view, and working away quietly rahter than parading around with short term "solutions". I suspect that in his next term he will get a lot more done. Let's support him by electing a Democratic congress.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2012 7:11 PM GMT
    Lostboy said
    Suetonius said
    Not really. The republicans would not adopt any polices that were anti-gay - they may just delay in relieving us of them - which is what Obama will do. And, you may not realize, that it was our famous Democrat, Clinton, who adopted the anti-gay policies we are now seeking to overturn and refused to attempt eliminating any discriminatory laws. There was no benefit in electing a Democrat then. You at least have the benefit of a system where when the prime minster wants a new policy, it becomes law. We do not. Our government changes hands between parties every election cycle (or more often these days every two election cycles). We can just wait out a cycle, and come back in with a better Democrat.


    Um. Yeah. I know how the USA system works. And while you wait for your mythical perfect democrat the republicans will try to undo the good things Obama did, stack the judicial system with extreme conservatives (the dems are presently center/conservative in their politics, the republicans extreme conservatives) and do everything else to fuck the country up longer term



    +1
    As if the country wouldn't go even further downhill during a Republican rule!
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Jan 25, 2012 9:56 PM GMT
    tazzari said
    Scruffypup saidTo the OP: I think you need to examine our options here. First of all, please name a president who's done more for gay rights. Secondly, who exactly is there to choose from that is more on our side than Obama? I would also remind you that politics is a very delicate game....if he were to come out and demand what you're suggesting, he would automatically lose thousands upon thousands of supporters, which would then open the gate for one of the nice Republicans to enter, and I'm sure you don't want that. Although I certainly don't agree with a lot of Obama's choices, I think he's played the balancing game quite well, and doing a lot for gay rights while doing so. Until there's a better option, I'd count my blessings.


    I agree. And Sullivan's article in last week's Newsweek shows how Obama has accomplished a great deal by taking a long-term view, and working away quietly rahter than parading around with short term "solutions". I suspect that in his next term he will get a lot more done. Let's support him by electing a Democratic congress.

    Some of you seem to have miss-read me here. My original point was that Obama’s speech went out of his way to call for giving special rights to illegal aliens (which would offend consevatives, and has no chance of being passed), while not also asking for the similar rights be given to gay citizens regarding immigration. Asking for equal rights (his speech was praised because it was said to be all about “fairness,” although the "fairness" did not apply to gays) would not cost him the election any more than asking for special treatment for illegal aliens. But he didn’t even ask. His speech is indicative of what policies are important to his administration, and gay rights is not one of them. He has shown his true colors on gay rights, yet again, by what he did not say.

    I am not so naïve as to think that by Obama stating that he supported giving gays equal rights (in however a weak fashion he would have made that statement) that his support of equal rights for gays would mean that that would be accomplished in his next term. But I do not believe in supporting politically those who do not support us. I think it is foolish to support politically those who do not support your interests. I will support and donate to the democratic party – just not to the presidential campaign. If the democrats retain control of the senate (which they are most likely to do, and perhaps also gain a majority in the house), having a republican president would not mean the end of the republic. It would mean just another four years of stagnation, after which, considering the changing mood of the electorate, it would be even more likely to elect a real democratic president.

    And as for White$Darks’s concern, “can we survive 4 years of Republican anti-gay Supreme court nominations? Yes we can, as there won’t be changes in the political makeup of the court if Ginsburg resigns this year. (the only other possible resignation would be Scalia's, and it would be impossible for a republican to appoint a replacement any more conservative and anti-gay rights than Scalia already is.)