home

Axelrod: Obama Opposes Same Sex Marriage

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:31:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Hill. In other news, I oppose opposite sex marriage as well as same sex marriage. At least marriages that involve the state. Government should get out of the marriage business, straight or gay.

And I bet you that the President agrees with me. But politics does not allow him to say that. Instead the President's men say stuff like this - "The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control[.]"

Pols are pols and do what they do.

Speaking for me only

< Time To Act | Thursday Afternoon Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Axelrod: Obama Opposes Same Sex Marriage | 123 comments (123 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Eh, I don't agree (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:40:44 PM EST
    Marriage is a special kind of civil contract that can be quite useful for a whole host of reasons (discussed at length by many people in other places). Moreover, marriage is a fundamental right.

    And to be honest with you, whatever the merits of marriage as an institution, deciding that right now is the time to extinguish the arrangement itself really rubs me the wrong way.

    Regarding the politics: the President is going to quickly find himself left in the dust on this issue unless he moves. I'm not going to withhold my vote, but it would be very difficult to support him otherwise in 2012 without some "evolution."

    I decided it a long time ago (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:42:54 PM EST
    I think I first wrote about getting out of the marriage business in 2004 at Josh Trevino's site- tacitus.

    Believe me, marriage has been disastrous for me. I recommend it to no one.

    Parent

    Then consider it a sentiment directed (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:47:55 PM EST
    at any pol who might consider using that point of view as novel way to get out of answering the equality question. It isn't acceptable to me.

    If marriage is so horrible, give the rest of us the opportunity to find out for ourselves.

    Parent

    Go to a church (or temple) (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    and get married then.

    Why do you need the government for that?

    Parent

    Why do people get married (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:52:44 PM EST
    at city hall?

    It seems obvious to me that there are real advantages to having the state define the scope of (and officiate) the contract.

    Parent

    I don't know why (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:54:50 PM EST
    Do you want to have a drop box where you can put your contract in? Why in Gawd's name do you want to pay a license fee so that the government puts your name on a list?

    Parent
    Sigh. . . (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:57:24 PM EST
    Respectful, I think you're speaking from ignorance on this issue.

    I suggest you read the report from the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission (PDF).

    Parent

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:58:46 PM EST
    The problem is the injection of the government in the marriage business.

    You're confusing the symptoms with the cause.

    Parent

    So your solution is to tear down (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:00:16 PM EST
    the whole edifice?

    Heh, I think you could be a useful punching bag in the rhetorical fight against equality opponents. "See, we're not the ones who want to destroy marriage!"

    Parent

    There you go (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:03:09 PM EST
    I volunteer for the destroying marriage flank.

    Parent
    OK, forgiven (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:04:35 PM EST
    Keep up the fight!

    Parent
    You don't even need a preacher... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:54:17 PM EST
    or a house of worship...you could form a lifelong pact with your significant at your kitchen table, just the two of ya.

    Parent
    Awesome. So will (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:55:59 PM EST
    the kitchen table marriage allow my partner onto my employer's health insurance plan pre-tax?  Somehow I doubt it.

    Parent
    That's because the gov't (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:57:45 PM EST
    has gotten involved in marriage.

    You have the argument backwards. It is because gov't is involved that there is a problem.

    Parent

    Sure, but let's calculate (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:00:36 PM EST
    the changes that civil marriage will die out in this country.  I'd call those odds about nonexistent.

    In the meantime, people are being discriminated against, and the president advocates "separate but equal".  It is bigotry plain and simple.  

    Parent

    Once marriage... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    has no legal meaning, I would think employers would offer health benefits to their employees just as they do now...individual, couple, or family...only the couples be could be a gay couple or a single person plus friend or roomate...win win win all around.

    Parent
    I think you are taking a simplistic view (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:04:38 PM EST
    here.  Child custody, visitation, and support; spousal support, if any; property division; matters of inheritance; recognition of the legality of the marriage in each state, not as each state wishes.

    Having sd. all that, I really, really wish marriage had not been so "expected" when I elected, w/o coercion, to get married.

    Parent

    The government already gets involved (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:23:14 PM EST
    on these matters in cases where the people involved are not married; people have children without benefit of religious or civil approval all the time, don't they?  And a fair number no doubt have custody and visitation issues as well as support issues.

    As for inheritance, if you have a Will, you can leave your estate to whomever you like; you might not be able to elect against the Will for a statutory spousal share if you aren't a spouse, but you can't do that now if you aren't a spouse.  If you don't have a Will, your estate goes to your heirs - what's changed there?

    Kind of silly even thinking about what would happen if government got out of marriage because it's never going to happen.

    Parent

    I agree very much (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:29:53 PM EST
    with your last sentence Anne.  Though, I would elaborate that in some cases that such thinking is more pernicious than silly.  

    It really does astound me that instead of calling out what is clearly a bigoted statement by the President of the United States, people would rather indulge in fantasies about the idea that civil marriage will be eliminated in this country.

    Parent

    We don't let politics... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:37:27 PM EST
    get in the way of meaningful discussion here...unlike over in DC, we aren't bound by political restraints when we speak our minds.

    Of course no one thinks government is getting out of the marriage business...it's far too good an idea to ever get serious consideration in the state house.

    Parent

    Fair enough, (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:43:15 PM EST
    just remember that gays and lesbians are not only second class citizens in DC and the state house; they are that way all over the country.

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:51:50 PM EST
    not in my house they aren't...unfortunately thats about all I can control.

    Parent
    or mine (2.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:55:56 PM EST
    you are not a second class citizen unless you allow yourself to be one.


    Parent
    Well under the law (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:59:30 PM EST
    we are.  Or have you worked out a special arrangement with the IRS?  If so, can I please have the number for your accountant?

    Parent
    I have no interest (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:24:39 PM EST
    in marriage.  same or opposite.  problem solved.


    Parent
    dont get me wrong (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:30:33 PM EST
    I will do everything I can to make sure you or anyone who wishes has the opportunity to be a miserable and any straight person.

    but its not a problem I spend a lot of time worrying about in my own personal life.


    Parent

    there is this minor detail (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:53:13 PM EST
    called inheritance tax that doesn't apply to a spouse.  So, even though you can leave your "stuff" to anyone you want to in a will, you can't do it tax free to anyone other than your spouse.

    Parent
    So people who choose (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:36:28 PM EST
    to be single are punished all the time.  Nothing new there.

    Parent
    Since this list (none / 0) (#106)
    by JamesTX on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:19:29 PM EST
    is full of lawyers, there is no need to remind that intestate succession is the dirtiest and most expensive route to go for anybody.

    Parent
    Intestate succession doesn't have to (none / 0) (#117)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 07:19:51 AM EST
    be dirty or expensive, at least in my experience (I've been working as a paralegal in the area of estates & trusts for over 30 years).

    People always assume that "intestate" equals "huge family brawl," and while every estate - even testate ones - can get ugly, dying without a Will doesn't guarantee a messy and expensive proceeding.  Heck, some of the messiest and most expensive estates I've been involved with were in cases where people had Wills, and the mess was because the survivors didn't like what their loved one decided to do with his or her estate.  Sometimes people use their Wills as a way to punish from beyond the grave - to make sure certain family members know - in stark terms - that Mommy or Daddy (or whoever) wasn't happy with those family members.  

    There's never any way to know how people are going to react to the terms of someone's Will: "fair" in the eyes of one person is "punitive" in the eyes of another.  

    It's still better to have a Will than not, because at least you get to decide where your estate will go - so if you know you want your estate to go to someone who isn't related to you by blood or state-sanctioned marriage, the only way to do that is to have a Will.

    Parent

    Thanks for the (none / 0) (#123)
    by JamesTX on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 03:27:05 PM EST
    info, Anne! I suppose there are cases where people are very unhappy with what they are given, especially children who don't get even cuts. I can't imagine doing that to my kids. There is something cheap and inherently unfair about it. What a bitter parting shot! It reminds me of Voltaire's final words in response to a priest's suggestion that he renounce Satan. He said it was no time to be making new enemies! I just wouldn't do it, no matter how irresponsible or guilty my kids were.

    My only direct experience with intestate succession was a nightmare because of heirs to real property (children) who couldn't be located or even identified. They never were found. It took years to clear the cloud on the title, and there is supposedly remaining liability. I suspect most cases aren't that complicated, though, as you say. And it certainly doesn't allow for "making new enemies" while dead! It just is what it is, and doesn't treat people in the same relationship differently, so people are less likely to feel wronged.

    Parent

    Kdog, I tried to convince (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by vml68 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:26:11 PM EST
    my family and friends about that for years, as they kept hounding the bf and me to get married.

    I managed to get my guy to agree to it after a lot of arguing. Now after ten years together we finally tied the knot because we were tired of always paying more in taxes!

    Interestingly, people always made the assumption that we were not married because he did not propose. When they found out that I was the one objecting to the "institution of marriage", I would get the "she must be mentally challenged look"... :-)

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:55:14 PM EST


    Parent
    I have been here for a long time (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:41:12 PM EST
    I never understood the need to get "married".
    I said it during the Clinton years when they were ready to go with civil unions and everyone was screaming NO NO MARRIAGE MARRIAGE.  WE HAVE RIGHT TO BE A MISERABLE AS THEY ARE.

    but seriously.  marriage, who needs it.  if a pact is needed a civil contract should do just fine.

    but then I cant explain religious gay people either


    Parent

    Ha ha (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:00:05 PM EST
    This is my voice....I was saying this in high school and I said it and said it for years.  Then I met someone, and the sparrows and the mice from Cinderella sang me a song while putting a white dress on me.  I still can't explain it :)

    Parent
    I recommend it (none / 0) (#18)
    by waldenpond on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:57:24 PM EST
    I've been married for ten years come October.  Can't do anything about broken hearts but we keep our finances separate and have never argued over money (I think the number one area for disagreement) even once.

    Parent
    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    But even if a man and woman are not married, have a child, lived together for several years, they are covered by state laws regarding common law.

    The same is not true for gay couples.

    Parent

    Not all states recognize common law (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:17:59 PM EST
    marriage.

    Parent
    thank God (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:18:39 PM EST


    Parent
    True (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:28:32 PM EST
    But many states, including NY, allow for common law rules even if you only visit a state, like PA, several times for vacation...

    IOW, all you have to do is show motel receipts and you are covered.

    Of course it is only relevant when there is a dispute..

    Parent

    Ha. In a trial to establish paternity, (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:19:53 PM EST
    the child's mother produced matchbook covers in which she wrote the pertinent dates of motel stays.  

    Parent
    What do you mean ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:59:10 PM EST
    ... "many states, including NY, allow for common law rules"?  Are you talking about comity?

    New York does not allow for the creation of common law marriages.  Nor does Pennsylvania, at least for the past few years.  You certainly can't enter into a common law marriage merely by visiting a state for a vacation .... even if it's several times, and even if you have motel receipts.

    Parent

    NYS Recognition of CLM (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:22:53 PM EST
    New York's Recognition of Out-of-State Common Law Marriages
    Although the State of New York has abolished common law marriage, the state may still recognize common law marriages established in other states pursuant to the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution. For instance, if a common law  couple lives in New York and merely vacations briefly in Pennsylvania, a state that recognizes common law marriage, New York State courts may very well recognize the marriage as valid because "Pennsylvania [does] not require that the couple reside within its borders for any specified period of time before their marital status will be recognized."

    Not only that, but "behavior in New York before and after a New York couple's visit to a jurisdiction that recognizes common-law marriage, like Pennsylvania, may be considered in determining whether the pair entered into a valid common-law marriage while cohabiting, even briefly, in the other jurisdiction." Evidence of either actual cohabitation in Pennsylvania (like hotel receipts) or the renewal of the private marriage vows in Pennsylvania would still be required.

    Because New York only recognizes a common law marriage where that marriage is valid under the laws of a state that validates common law marriage, it is important to understand what the elements of a common law marriage are in that state. This will determine what one must prove in order to have the marriage recognized in New York. Using our Pennsylvania law example, there is one primary requirement that must be met to validate a common law marriage.



    Parent
    Yes - that's comity (none / 0) (#118)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 08:10:33 AM EST
    The principle that states will recognize (with certain exceptions)legal actions and decisions of other states.  In fact, NY other states) will recognize valid common law marriages from any state where those marriages are lawful.  The problems with your example are:

    1.  As I indicated, Pa. no longer recognizes common law marriages, entered into since Jan. 1, 2005 (arguably since a court decision in 2003).

    2.   A couple has to exhibit an intent to be married, usually "holding themselves out" as husband and wife.  In Pa., prior to 2003/2005, this meant either: 1) a direct expression (i.e. verbal/written) to enter into a marital relationship, or sufficient proof of cohabitation and a reputation of marriage in the community.  Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer, 552 Pa. 253.  Going on a vacation to Pa, in and of itself, ain't gonna do it.

    3.  cohabitation - Pa. does not define a specific "cohabitation" period for purposes of marriage/divorce, but the courts in Pa have the courts have generally defined cohabitation as "two persons of the opposite sex resid[ing] together in manner of husband and wife, mutually assuming those rights and duties usually attendant upon the marriage relationship. Cohabitation may be shown by evidence of financial, social and sexual interdependence, by a sharing of the same residence, and by other means." Miller v. Miller, 508 A.2d 550, (1986).  I'd defer to Peter G who obviously has some experience with common law marriage in Pa., and notes that the cohabitation period was "lengthy".  Could be the reason for those qualifiers in your unsourced quote ("New York State courts may very well recognize the marriage", "Using our Pennsylvania law example, there is one primary requirement", etc.)

    Have no fear about that weekend in PA, NYers.  You're not going to end up in a common law marriage.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#103)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:48:06 PM EST
    While the requirements vary somewhat by state, mere cohabitation and/or parenting a child is not enough to establish a common law marriage.  A couple has to "hold themselves out" as husband and wife in order to enter into a common law marriage.

    Parent
    In Pennsylvania, prior to the abolition (none / 0) (#108)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:43:05 PM EST
    of common law marriage by statute a few years ago (thanks to the lobbying of insurance companies), it was also necessary -- in addition to lengthy cohabitation and "holding out" -- to prove that the couple had exchanged vows (at least privately), that is, had spoken words of present intention to be each other's spouses.  Back in 1984, I co-authored an amicus curiae brief arguing that gay couples could enter into common law marriages in Pennsylvania (and then, as sought in that case, get a divorce), because there was no law against it.  (Yes, over 25 years ago!) The "Superior" Court shot us down, in an opinion authored by probably its most intellectual and liberal member. (Case also available here.)

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#119)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 08:18:51 AM EST
    I think I vaguely remember briefing that case back in law school ... third year was a bit of a blur.  :)

    Interesting case and legal theory.

    Parent

    I'm (none / 0) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:50:40 PM EST
    neither in favor nor against the rights of anyone getting married and agree with your government should get out of the marriage business approach. The only group I'm sure is all in on same sex, opposite sex, and every other kind of marriage is family lawyers. It adds market share to their business.

    Parent
    No wonder I love you (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:03:02 PM EST
    I am the daughter of man married five times, and five times struck out.  And I can't explain it because he understands "womens studies" like you do too.  Bless your heart :)  He was a good dad for a girl to get stuck with though.

    Parent
    Just went to my mother's fifth wedding (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:09:21 PM EST
    Her new husband, bless his heart, pulled me aside, a little tipsy, and said he'd always wanted to talk to me about this, but never did, and now he wanted to. "What is it?" I asked him. He then went on to sweetly assure me that he'd take care of her, that he was the lucky one, to have some a beautiful and intelligent and accomplished woman. I thanked him, told him not to worry, that I trusted him. When he walked away, satisfied, I realized he was the fourth man with whom I'd had that conversation at various stages of my life. The very same one.  (My sister and I -- she from hubby two, me from number one -- wondered why they didn't just elope, and my sister fried her for not getting a pre-nup. Her fourth wedding was three months before mine. My wife and I will be married fourteen years this New Year's Eve.)

    Parent
    With all due respect (none / 0) (#99)
    by BTAL on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:20:25 PM EST
    sounds like it could be a script for an episode of 2 1/2 Men.

    Congrats on the upcoming anniversary.

    Mrs. BTAL and I just celebrated our 27th.  I kid her with "even some murders get paroled after 20 years".

    Parent

    Josh was watching Marley and Me last night (none / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:27:43 AM EST
    In that movie there is a discussion between the author and his editor, and his editor tells a story of when his kids were little he would wake up in the middle of the night and his wife would standing over him with a meat cleaver.  The way he says it, it's pretty funny.  Then he claims he was always afraid back then that his wife was going to kill him, and sometimes he still is :)

    Parent
    I have kin around here :) (none / 0) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:24:57 AM EST


    Parent
    Squeaky, please take note of subject line. (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:04:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Love Takes Many Forms (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:14:52 PM EST


    Parent
    We can still have civil contracts... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:50:44 PM EST
    it will just be up to you and your partner if you wanna give your civil contract a special name, such as "marriage".  

    I've long shared BTD's opinion...government has no place in the marriage business...keep it private. And where legal issues arise, it's a civil contract between two persons in the eyes of Uncle Sam...nothing more, nothing less.

    Parent

    Just ask the gay couples who have (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:53:52 PM EST
    tried to accomplish marriage through private contract how easy that's been.

    Parent
    That's because the state... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:56:28 PM EST
    only recognizes certain marriages...no?

    If the state recognized no marriage, I think the problem of inequality for gays is alleviated.

    Parent

    Sure, but that's not going to happen. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:57:13 PM EST
    And what do you suggest that gays and lesbians do in the meantime?

    Parent
    Fight for their rights... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:18:03 PM EST
    same deal everybody getting wronged has...it sucks I know.  

    I support gay marriage rights since government is in the marriage business, equality demands nothing less...sh*t I support polygamist marriage rights for the same reason...but the ideal would be to get government out of the marriage business alltogether, imo.

    Parent

    Why isn't it going to happen? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:59:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Um, because it won't. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:02:03 PM EST
    I think there's a better chance for single payer health care before civil marriage is eliminated.  

    Parent
    There's a better chance at flying to the (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by tigercourse on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:07:24 PM EST
    moon by flapping your arms then the elimination of civil marriage.

    Parent
    If they call it civil unions (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:06:32 PM EST
    would that qualify as eliminating it?

    Parent
    You are telling me that you think (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:10:20 PM EST
    in our lifetimes there is a possibility that all 50 states will amend their marriage laws to call them civil unions, and then allow gays and lesbians to engage in them?  Really?

    Parent
    All 50 states? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:18:29 PM EST
    Well, no.

    But how about say, 20 states, including CA, NY, FL, IL, PA. etc.

    I figure getting Idaho, Utah and Nevada out is asking too much, for various reasons.

    Parent

    Oh, so gays and lesbians would (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:32:26 PM EST
    be second class citizens in 30 states?  What a relief.

    Parent
    Isn't one of the biggest problems for (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:07:48 PM EST
    people in same sex civil unions that not every state recognizes another state's civil union?

    Parent
    But it is because the government (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:56:34 PM EST
    has tried to stay in the marriage business that it is difficult.

    If the government was out of that business, then it would be easy.

    Think of a marriage as a will. The government only gets involved if there is a dispute.

    Parent

    People who have "good ones" (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:17:23 PM EST
    don't want it extinguished either :)  I never really cared one way or the other in my single years.  And there were many of those.  But I did marry and it's a pretty good one. It's almost a status symbol these days considering how badly straight people are doing marriage :)

    I want a badge for this sash that hides the ball and chain :)  I CAN live without it, but do I have to live without it in order to end the gay marriage bigotry that still won't end?  Perhaps in a legal sense it may, not sure.  I suppose it could be beneficial in that respect.  Overall worth it?  I dunno

    Parent

    Will celebrate 30 years later this month... (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:30:25 PM EST
    something of a rarity in some circles.

    When our daugter got married, everyone from the caterer to the florist to the DJ remarked about how unusual it was that both bride's and groom's parents were still married to each other - there were no 2nd wives or husbands, no exes to plan table seating around.

    I found that kind of sad that we were such an object of amazement.

    It's not all been roses and rainbows, but the peaks have outnumbered the valleys, we've managed to grow without growing apart, and in a moment that made me cry, I overheard my husband tell our younger daughter last night that "the day I married your mother was the happiest day of my life."

    I would have to agree.  And maybe that's why it's lasted so long.

    Parent

    Thirty-seven years and counting (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by itscookin on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:48:49 PM EST
    My son-in-law's parents have celebrated over 40 years. At our daughter's wedding, the minister said, "Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to join this man and this woman in holy matrimony. They each have a hard act to follow and great teachers about how this is done."  The congregation rose to it's feet and applauded.

    Parent
    Relatively Short... (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:13:36 PM EST
    I am going to my aunt and uncles 70th wedding anniversary in two weeks... lol

    Parent
    That's the thing Tracy... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:26:08 PM EST
    no one can extinguish it except you and Mr. MT...it's your partnership.

    I mean if the magistrate (word of the day!)came to your door right now and said your marriage was invalid, you wouldn't be hitting the singles bars tonight as a free woman would ya?  

    Parent

    Hmmmmmmmm...... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:35:17 PM EST
    And put all that military retirement in jeopardy?  What are you smoking to even think such fanciful thoughts :)?

    Parent
    Exactly... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:40:53 PM EST
    you aren't married because your tax forms say so, you're married because you and Mr. MT say so.

    And if the Pentagon tried to cut you off from benefits, I'm sure Mr. MT would split it 50/50 regardless of whether he was legally bound to or not...and if he didn't you could still take him to court, same as any other private dispute that can't be settled privately.

    Parent

    You'd think huh? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:56:50 PM EST
    He was teasing me the day because he would have to give me half if it was only retirement.  When he is out though now he will be out with some sort of percentage of disability...then retirement money legally becomes labeled disability money...based on the percentage they find him disabled.  He has RA though, that has to be around 100%...all his damn it :)  I can't touch his disability.  I'm forced into being nice to him :)

    Parent
    The concept of marriage (none / 0) (#83)
    by JamesTX on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:11:58 PM EST
    is an exceedingly bad one to base culture wars on, because it is a loaded question. Marriage is a religious institution, and the fact it is still hanging around on the law books is unfortunate. As a legal concept, it should have long ago been sanitized to meet the requirements of the first amendment, and the government should have nothing to say about it one way or the other. Forcing those of us on the left to support marriage as a legal concept under threat of being branded closeted bigots is part of the nasty and dishonest way politics is done nowadays. Like BTD, I fully support equal rights for everyone, but marriage is not a business the government should be in, at all. Pitching this battle in such a way as to require people to support something wrong in order to support what is right is a cruel double-bind to place people in. And I am tired of it. The argument is with religion -- not government. The government should be irrelevant, and marriage from a legal perspective should simply be a contract between consenting adults, even if standardized in some way. Why is it so important that we fix laws that simply need to be done away with altogether? To the extent that same-sex marriage victories re-affirm the government's role in marriage, we are stepping backward for every step forward.

    Parent
    You should read Walker's opinion (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:14:56 PM EST
    marriage is a civil institution.

    You might as well say that formal education is a religious institution.

    Parent

    Yes, and downplayed (none / 0) (#91)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:49:37 PM EST
    the religious role in starting a marriage or stopping it (divorce).

    Parent
    For practical purposes (none / 0) (#95)
    by JamesTX on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:38:18 PM EST
    it is a civil institution, but it shouldn't be, and refusing to address the fact that it shouldn't just sets up up for more problems. It is a civil institution just like slavery was. It is a holdover from religious government and was adopted into our laws simply because the questions of what it actually is have never come up before. Now that those questions are coming up, government will have to get out of it or will have to define it. This day is happy day for some people because it has been initially defined in their way (Traditionally MF separated by some degree of consanguity; now MF, MM, or FF separated by some degree of consanguity). As the meaning and order of domestic life continues to evolve and change (rapidly nowadays, faster than the creeping wheels of justice can keep up), what about future populations and contingents for which this won't work? Rather than freeing those future people of government regulation of their personal lives, we have started toward implementation of a system where new types of relationships will have to solicit the government for approval and definition. Consider the pain and cost which has been visited upon gays and lesbians because of this. Now, you say, all people who find themselves in similar adverse circumstances with the current definition of civil relationships should have to go through the same trials and tribulations to be recognized or retain rights in the future? Wouldn't we now admit, after all that gays and lesbians have suffered to achieve what has been achieved, that everyone else (especially those in the future who can't be understood yet) must suffer the same fate and the same fight? Like I say, what is being promoted here as freedom is oppression in disguise, borrowed on the installment plan for the future. It is the first steps toward inviting government further into our living rooms and bedrooms, and asking it to stay longer, when we should be getting them out.

    Parent
    I dunno (none / 0) (#98)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:19:17 PM EST
    I had a stronger response half-written, but thought better of it. Maybe this whole discussion is hitting my "conservative" nerve.

    The family has taken many different forms over the years. But marriage is a useful thing right now.

    Parent

    But the discussion of (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:49:18 PM EST
    "marriage" did serve as a good means to change, if not skirt, the subject from Axelrod's comments.

    Parent
    andgarden, it isn't (none / 0) (#107)
    by JamesTX on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:05:50 PM EST
    that I think anything could or would be done "right now", and I am most certainly not saying these things to suggest I support inequality. I didn't start on this argument yesterday. I have been saying this a long time. Nobody could be happier with the practical result of the ruling. My point is about how good causes get wrapped up with bad ideas, and it has been happening to us as a people for too long now.

    We get fooled by the powerful and wealthy political operative artists who "design" our social and political movements and issues for pay, and they design them to give us what we like to hear while allowing their employers to rob us from behind. Every political "accomplishment" in the last forty years for the political left has been that way. We thought we were winning at the time, but it turns out the fine print actually hurt us later.

    Nothing in my sentiments is about wishing anybody to be denied the right to marry. My ideas are more about what we are giving up in that process by doing it the wrong way. I have never been on the marriage equality bandwagon for that reason, but I do support equality strongly if government is going to define marriage. It's just that I don't think it should!

    The word "marriage" in our laws should be made to default to a standard generic civil union concept that allows any type of union which the parties wish to enter whatsoever. When I hear people talk about the law and "expressions of love", I get really irritated. The law doesn't do "love". There is a very real cost when we get what we want by making pacts with the devil, and strengthening the role of government in defining personal relationships is doing just that.

    The western European Christian concept which underlies the term "marriage" in our history must be removed from our laws. The first amendment demands it. If people want to get married, fine. See a preacher. Not a judge, and certainly not the legislature. And remove all privileges which derive from the religious historical concept, such that discrimination can't occur. I encourage anyone to rejoice in marriage as they wish. Just don't bring the government into it and claim it entails rights which cannot be shared by anyone else. Insurance comes to mind. If marriage defaulted to a generic civil union concept, then anyone could get benefits -- including some that can make a very good argument for domestic partnerships that have nothing to do with the traditional idea of marriage, such as relatives who depend on each other and should have the benefits of a married couple when their relationship is not of the traditional "romantic" type.

    Get the "romance", sex, and "love" out of the concept altogether as far as the government is concerned. Hold marriage out as an expression of romantic love and values underlying such things at church -- not from the courthouse steps. Think of the civil partnership as being like a parade permit. It has nothing to do with the meaning or purpose of the parade. It is not about what the parade stands for or symbolizes. It is practical device to make civil life run smoother. We don't want the government getting involved in what parades symbolizes or stand for. Nor should we want them involved in what civil unions of any kind symbolize or represent. That is the wrong path to go.

    Parent

    I'm sorry, but (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 02:54:29 PM EST
    what Obama is saying here is that he advocates "separate but equal" for gay men and lesbians under the law.  

    Pols may be pols, but they don't have to be bigots.  There are no excuses for this.

    Sure there is (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:01:42 PM EST
    He is for government sanctioned gay "civil unions."

    As opposed to gay "marriages."

    I say the government gets out of the marriage business and only stays in the "civil union" business as long as necessary.

    Is it coddling bigotry? Why yes! Yes it does.

    Welcome to politics.

    Parent

    That is an (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:03:41 PM EST
    explanation, not an excuse.  The explanation is that he is promoting bigotry.  

    Parent
    Not really promoting (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:05:48 PM EST
    more like bowing to it.

    Parent
    Yes promoting. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:07:38 PM EST
    He is advocating for it.  Separate but equal.  That's what the staement said.  

    I just don't get the reluctance to call him out on this.  

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    Call him out on it if you feel so obliged.

    Personally, I thought his Donnie McClurkin stunt was the really vile thing he did on gay rights.

    Parent

    It was the thing that made him (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:11:42 PM EST
    untrustworthy in all related areas.

    He doesn't have any credibility on gay issues.

    Parent

    Oh, the McClurkin stunt was vile. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:12:33 PM EST
    The statement today is a continuation on the theme.  It's not surprising, just bigoted.

    Parent
    DOMA? (3.50 / 2) (#73)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:45:08 PM EST
    Clinton a bigot too?  Just checking if they have equal protection or this is just about Obama... lol

    Parent
    Sure, anyone who (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:02:41 PM EST
    thinks separate but equal is to be advocated is a bigot.

    Parent
    The statement attributed to Obama (none / 0) (#64)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:30:29 PM EST
    ("The president ... supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control[.]") is misleading, at best.  The Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Pres. Clinton) defines "marriage" and "spouse" (and so forth), as used in any and all federal laws, to refer to the marriage of a man and a woman -- even if the couple is lawfully married in their own State.  There is very little in the "benefits and other issues" granted by federal agencies "under his control" that is not hamstrung by DOMA.  Any implication that Obama has managed to bypass Congress to achieve equality for federal employee couples has, shall we say, limited truth to it.  And of course the majority of what's unequal about federal law in this regard (especially in the Internal Revenue Code and the Social Security Act) is totally outside the President's unilateral control.

    Parent
    Why did Axelrod feel it was necessary (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:07:24 PM EST
    to address this question on national TV?  Isn't silence sometimes the better alternative, even for pols and their puppetmasters?

    Because he and Obama see being (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:25:36 PM EST
    mild anti-gay bigots as a political plus for him.  Full stop.

    Parent
    Did You See The Video? (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:47:18 PM EST
    Axelrod was asked: Where does the President stand today?

    Waffling.... nothing has changed. So whatever you believed about Obama you can still keep believing it.

    OH And here is the transcript:

    MSNBC: Does the President support states trying to go their own way on same sex marriages? Do you think it is appropriate for a state to ban it, and appropriate for others state to decide it's ok.

    Axelrod:
    Well though, the, the,uhe..... He does believe Marriage is an issue for the states, and he did oppose prop 8. Sooo, That's been his postion



    Parent
    You find this response more satisfactory (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:53:52 AM EST
    than I do.

    Parent
    The government is in the marriage (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:13:59 PM EST
    business only because there's money in it, and I guess the only way it could get people to pay up was to tell them that without that little piece of paper, a whole host of benefits would be unavailable to them.

    It's all about the rents, you know, and this is just part of it.

    I suspect that suggesting that the government get out of the marriage business would engender the same - or similar - arguments we heard about why we couldn't have single-payer: not "American" enough, and we just don't do things that way, or something lame like that.  

    Besides, if you thought the din from the this-will-threaten-traditional-marriage crowd was loud before, tell them the government is closing up shop on this because, whether you are married or not, we will all have the same rights, and the doors will blow off the place.

    One wonders how long Obama can keep straddling these kinds of fences before he impales himself, or his b@lls fall off from lack of circulation.

    I don't think the government makes money (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:11:50 PM EST
    marriages.  Why do you think so?  Marriage license is cheap.  Family law courts are expensive.  

    Parent
    wow (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CST on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:16:23 PM EST
    there are some seriously anti-marriage folks here.  And I thought I was cynical.

    I think marriage works for some people and not for others.  But it's a choice you can make, and I think it's a choice everyone should have the opportunity to make, or not, regardless of sexual orientation.  Especially today where it is not nearly so "expected" as it was - it is a true choice now.

    This statement by Obama was foolish, stupid, and wrong on so many levels.  You'd think the man would have a little more respect for history at least.  And history will not judge him kindly for this.  Seperate but equal is absolutely right.

    Agree completely. (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by huzzlewhat on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:29:26 AM EST
    I think marriage works for some people and not for others.  But it's a choice you can make, and I think it's a choice everyone should have the opportunity to make, or not, regardless of sexual orientation.

    Exactly. Denying a class of people an opportunity, then saying, "Ah, you didn't want that anyway," is still denying them an opportunity. It's sort of like saying, "You didn't want to sit at that lunch counter anyway. Their chicken sandwiches are terrible."

    As long as being married and having that marriage recognized by the state carries real and recognizable benefits, marriage should be available to everyone who is subject to the laws of the state.

    Parent

    Too bad Talk Left doesn't feature polls. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:23:32 PM EST
    Looks like "marriage" would lose big time here.

    Parent
    I don't think so (none / 0) (#101)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:01:19 PM EST
    Look at the positively drooling, dewy-eyed comments on the Mezvinsky-Clinton wedding just days ago.

    Parent
    Which had zippo to do with (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:27:09 PM EST
    the civil legal issues being discussed here.  Come on.

    Parent
    Nobody here is (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 11:28:20 PM EST
    dumping on the idea of people being in love and committing to each other with attendant celebrations.  That's what the Clinton-Mezvinsky fuss was about, not the legal status or the role of the government.

    Parent
    True. Secret Wedding Channel (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:52:11 AM EST
    viewers.

    Parent
    We loved the non-marriage ceremony (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:31:27 PM EST
    we had overseas, so the family of my daughter-in-law could have the fun of seeing young uns so in love and pledging their love before one and all there.  When they filed for the fiance visa, because it allows a work visa sooner, she had worried about how to tell her folks that they would not see her married there, as the fiance visa requires the ceremony here.

    So I said, so tell them to do the whole thing, anyway -- including the signing of the papers, which is part of the ceremony in her country.  (Bride and groom go to a table on the altar, sign in front of one and all, quite different from here.)

    But then, I said, just don't file the papers there.  And when you finally get the visa to come here, we'll hold the ceremony fast for just immediate family here.  And then we had yet a third occasion to all get to wear our bridal dresses and bridesmaid dresses and mother-of-the-groom dresses, etc., for the reception months later. . . .

    That's what they did, and they now have celebrated the first anniversary -- on the date that they choose to celebrate, the date when they pledged their troth and all that.  Guess which one?

    Yes, I have long (none / 0) (#30)
    by JamesTX on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:04:15 PM EST
    argued against marriage in general. I don't recommend it for anybody. I think the state is wrong to protect people from drugs, and marriage is lot more dangerous. Since the issue has come to mean so much to so many good people who I really support, I have to support equal rights; but that doesn't mean I think it is a good idea. I wouldn't do it if I were you.

    Separate but equal (none / 0) (#44)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:16:38 PM EST
    wouldn't really be what it is if civil unions are allowed.  Wouldn't the only difference be the wording used?  Isn't the real issue the rights afforded those who make up the union?  As long as these are equal what is the issue?

    The gov't shouldn't be involved in this stuff at all, but if it must, shouldn't the issue really be about the rights of those involved?

    Yes, but Obama (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:20:45 PM EST
    isn't talking about eliminating civil marriage.  He's all for it.  Just not for the second class citizens, apparently.

    Parent
    Words matter when empowering bigots (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:24:59 PM EST


    Parent
    If the only difference is wording... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Tony on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:20:56 PM EST
    what is the point of not allowing same-sex couples to marry?

    Parent
    Hmmmmmmm...thinking this over (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:23:32 PM EST
    What it takes long term for social change.  Okay, I guess you can have my Marriage for something that I don't know how to put into legal terms....but some sort of federally recognized civil union, and gay people were in there with me.  I'll have a civil union then and I don't ever need a marriage after that.  That would be a sacrifice worth making.

    MT, I see you, and maybe your daughter, (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:27:43 PM EST
    cleaning up bigtime here.  Instead of re-affirmation of vows, you copywrite a ceremony to dissolve the marriage as a gesture toward equality for same sex couples.  

    Parent
    You are a genius (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:32:32 PM EST
    I see T-shirts, special cake toppers, the sky is the limit.  And everyone who has a gay family member isn't just a sales lead here :)

    Parent
    Don't forget the musicians. They need (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:35:48 PM EST
    the $$.

    Parent
    But, but, but--on NPR the other day, (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:26:02 PM EST
    before the court ruling in San Francisco, someone opined if anyone can marry anyone they want under the U.S. Constitution, wouldn't this open the floodgates to bigamy/polygamy?

    Parent
    As long as people are of age (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:28:57 PM EST
    Not sure I care :)  My husband won't be wanting another one of me.  One is all you can handle :)  I think he should find someone who LOVES dishes and laundry.

    Parent
    And you could make it really cheap too (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:27:09 PM EST
    Then everyone would do that and feck an expensive marriage license in this horrible economy.

    Parent
    Expensive? Really? Which state? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:07:59 PM EST
    Marriage licenses are cheap in my state and most of which I know.  Much cheaper than licenses for anything else!

    Parent
    pols are pols (none / 0) (#114)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:04:59 AM EST
    and do what they do?

    then if what they "do" is speak & act like bigots i guess what we should do is not vote for them

    btw i have never seen anyone quote himself more often than BTD quotes himself on this little maxim - brought to you by the same towering intellect that brought you "media darling" lol

    BTD i can't tell if you are being willfully naive on the issue of marriage equality or just plain naive

    to me it's no different from "gays in the military" - i don't want to join up & don't support a militarized empire, just as some do not want to marry & think the govt should get out of the marriage business - i think so too but if some people are banned from full participation in military life, or in married life, b/c of sexual orientation then that is discrimination & should not be tolerated

    & the govt is not getting out of the marriage biz, any more than the govt is getting out of the military biz

    so no separate but equal & shame on wimpy Obama

    Axelrod: Obama Opposes Same Sex Marriage | 123 comments (123 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment