tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post1694674701628371895..comments2024-03-27T04:14:38.477-05:00Comments on crAAKKer: Marriage Equality & the Courage of Political PanderingGrange95http://www.blogger.com/profile/01857460215043659894noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post-44052657213037083312012-08-13T05:25:11.132-05:002012-08-13T05:25:11.132-05:00Probably the funniest poker blog.. probably!Probably the funniest poker blog.. probably!Free poker bankrollshttp://www.pokerbankrollsfree.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post-40917327864253650592012-06-03T19:54:22.501-05:002012-06-03T19:54:22.501-05:00Thanks for a well put together post on stances and...Thanks for a well put together post on stances and links. I tire of politicians pandering and basically being politicians, although as you said, there are worst cowards to have on your side in the case of gay rights. <br /><br />The more issues that catch my interest lately, the more I see how long a road, advocates for gay marriage have, it's very unlikely to change from being a state issue, which is going to take a while for our backward states to fall in line.<br /><br />I hope I'm wrong though, and we'll continue to see progress. Unfortunately in a democracy, when the average citizen is prejudiced and they are the majority, then we wind up in situations like this. Mike Judge's "Idiocracy" rings more true to me on a daily basis.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17190937282558817928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post-21588729032799490872012-05-28T18:49:35.469-05:002012-05-28T18:49:35.469-05:00@ KenP: I'm always up to sip some quality bou...@ KenP: I'm always up to sip some quality bourbon and have some friendly discussion. I'm kind of a Scotch newbie, but certainly willing to experiment. :-) Next time we're in the same town, let's connect.Grange95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01857460215043659894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post-3147355573960957212012-05-28T18:24:44.660-05:002012-05-28T18:24:44.660-05:00But, marriage is a social issue. Law and privilege...But, marriage is a social issue. Law and privileged were tied to it in another era where this conversation would never have occurred. So, we ended up with a social state that carries that baggage. <br /><br />I believe anyone should, given the proper background, be able to determine issues for an incapacitated love one along with the other care. Some of those issues are resolvable using existing law; others are in need of improvement.<br /><br />As to states rights, currently that is the only viable vehicle of change. That means many paths -- forward and back. I think the question here is: "Would it be more accommodating if the term marriage were removed. All this is much like the common law problems that vary by area.<br /><br />The problems you outline are serious not only for you and your spouse but for those aging without a recognized decision maker like me. Approach it from that angle and it is likely you can get more but it won't carry the sound bites many insist on.<br /><br />I still feel marriage is a social institution. But, the past has decorated it with concepts that don't always serve everyone. Nothing new about that in legal circles.<br /><br />What I'm saying is pretty simplistic/cursory. I'd rather hash it out over a single malt or small batch bourbon. Wpn't change anything but I think the understanding may improve.KenPhttp://www.pokerperambulation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post-26323789268403770952012-05-25T15:15:38.322-05:002012-05-25T15:15:38.322-05:00@KenP, I was more talking about individual states&...@KenP, I was more talking about individual states' constitutions, but I believe that one of the core functions of a constitution is common to them all, irrespective of level of government: to grant or guarantee the rights of its citizens. Sorry if I wasn't clear.<br /><br />The Massachusetts Constitution, for one example, declares in its preamble that the whole concept of a government is to "...to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness." It goes on to devote the entire first part to an enunciation of 30 separate rights - including the freedom of religion, although originally it was restricted to just Christian religions before a newer article superseded it.craftyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12092073053793715234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post-69203872045037281922012-05-25T12:05:00.775-05:002012-05-25T12:05:00.775-05:00@ Rakewell (a/k/a Poker Grump): I'm not convi...@ Rakewell (a/k/a Poker Grump): I'm not convinced that the "leave it to the states" argument is inconsistent with a gay equality position. To me, the two positions are easily reconciled by stating that gays should have full legal protection for their relationships, but it's up to each state whether to open marriage to gays, or to create civil unions or domestic partnerships that provide full legal marriage rights to gays without the marriage label. The federal gov't would recognize marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships equally. Now, I don't know if that's what Obama means or not; he hasn't really addressed that point, probably intentionally (articulating the point above would be a tough sell in many states).<br /><br />With respect to the 1996 survey, I don't know what the truth is. I've heard an explanation that the survey was filled out by a staffer. I know that civil unions weren't really being floated as an alternative in 1996, so the question could have been understood by Obama as whether he was for or against giving gays equal legal rights; so, support for "gay marriage" meant legal marriage rights only, a/k/a civil unions. <br /><br />Or, as is more likely the case, Obama recognized that sucessful politicians have to avoid or obfuscate any positions on controversial issues, and so chose to support civil unions as a path of political expediency. I'm a pragmatist. There's no way Obama gets elected President in 2008 if he openly supported gay marriage. I do know Obama was and has proven to be the stronger candidate for gay rights issues in general, and the candidate better able to advance the cause of gay marriage. The "wink and a nod" approach is a reality of politics on both sides on any number of issues. I'm sure as hell not worrying myself with foolish inconsistencies of "evolving" political positions so long as I know Obama is on the right side of gay rights issues.Grange95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01857460215043659894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post-33311035288567953402012-05-25T11:51:52.526-05:002012-05-25T11:51:52.526-05:00@ KenP: "Using politics to resolve social iss...@ KenP: <i>"Using politics to resolve social issues creates more problems than solutions."</i><br /><br />The problem is that marriage equality is not just a social issue, it's a legal issue. I don't give a flying monkey whether my neighbors or the Catholic Church recognize my relationship. But I do care if I can't make medical decisions for my husband just because he happened to become sick or injured in a state that refuses to recognize any form of same-sex legal partnership (just to pick one issue--throw in taxes, child cusotdy, inheritance, and quite a number of other legal issues). So unfortunately, because our society mixes legal marriage and religious marriage, using politics to fix the legal side problems might offend some religious side folks. Too damn bad.<br /><br /><i>"I just wish the side could find a point allowing for some mutual respect. I believe respect is the missing element on both sides."</i><br /><br />Mutual respect is a great idea. But the rhetoric is assymetrical. Marriage equality advocates want gays to be treated the same under the law. Marriage equality opponents (at least the vocal ones) talk about the "gathering storn", the "threat to real marriages", "San Francisco values", "special rights", "immorality", "destroying society / America", not to mention trotting out the gay blood libel: Gays can't get married and are unfit to be parents because they can't reproduce and are looking to molest children and convert them to new gays. When Republicans let the social conservatives set the tone for their side of the debate, and in fact continue to fan the flames of that rhetoric, they made it pretty clear they have no desire for calm, respectful discussion.Grange95https://www.blogger.com/profile/01857460215043659894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post-87977113217831674352012-05-25T10:54:10.350-05:002012-05-25T10:54:10.350-05:00Care to take a crack at the paradox he left? I.e.,...Care to take a crack at the paradox he left? I.e., in the interview he said that the issue should be left to the states (making this, as many pundits have pointed out, virtually the only subject on which he even PRETENDS to GAF about states' rights), but his administration's official position on DOMA is that it is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds, which presumably puts it beyond the power of states to deny. If he genuinely believes it's an unconstitutional denial of equal protection, then how can he justify allowing states to continue to discriminate? But if he doesn't believe that, why is he allowing the DOJ to take that position in court? <br /><br />Also, you fail to mention that Obama fully backed gay marriage in 1996 (see http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=20229), then at some point abandoned that position, at least publicly. Did he really change his mind, or did he just take a safer, less courageous position for purposes of personal political gain?Rakewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15873391354585352712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post-73810468473681459452012-05-25T07:52:52.630-05:002012-05-25T07:52:52.630-05:00Using politics to resolve social issues creates mo...Using politics to resolve social issues creates more problems than solutions. We persist. It is the better side of our nature. Both sides use the emotions generated for their cause.<br /><br />Marriage, additionally, is a loaded term with a variety of understandings. I understand the desires it generates. But, that eliminates compromise. <br /><br />Activism is confrontational. Not expecting or accepting it is childlike. <br /><br />As a Libertarian, I certainly support self-determination. I just wish the side could find a point allowing for some mutual respect. I believe respect is the missing element on both sides.<br /><br />(And Gary needs to review States Rights and what the framer's intent was. They knew they weren't creating a perfect system but one needing checks and balances that could accommodate the diverse views and needs.)KenPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06743029070414530606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1169281096117913024.post-22056215555007665502012-05-24T23:37:59.684-05:002012-05-24T23:37:59.684-05:00Hear hear. I made the point a few weeks ago that ...Hear hear. I made the point a few weeks ago that there is nothing quite so loathsome as using a state constitution - a document after all designed to protect its citizens from an overzealous government - to deny rights, rather than grant or guarantee them, to a group of its citizens.craftyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12092073053793715234noreply@blogger.com