Obama 'grappling' with gay marriage

When I was a kid growing up in the 50s, being gay was still a criminal offense. I was straight and the subject of gay rights was rarely discussed, but my family closely followed TV and radio news, and often talked about news stories with me (since they knew I wanted to go into media someday). There was a talk show in Boston that sometimes invited members of advocacy groups, which is where I first learned of the Daughters of Bilitis (for lesbian rights) & the Mattachine Society (gay men's rights). And I started to think more about how society demonized gay people.

But while locking gay people up always seemed wrong to me, it never occurred to me that gay people might want to marry. Being gay was always presented as a negative. Gradually, thanks to the gay pride movement, and to knowing some gay people, my views evolved, moving from "why would they want to marry?" to "what's wrong with marriage equality?" These days, marriage equality makes perfect sense to me, where it didn't when I was a kid. And the fact that we have gay marriage in MA has not hurt my heterosexual marriage at all!

This is a pretty smart move. Hardly anybody under age 40 thinks Jesus wants them to hate and persecute gays anymore. This notion is pretty much the obsession of the old people, who are doomed to disappear soon. With about 10% of the American population being gay, and about another 40% being their friends and supporters, Obama is setting himself up for re-election next year. It also eggs on Republicans for a lot of disgusting hate-mongering, which will just alienate them even further from anybody who's not a hater. Smart move.

From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, gay sexual activity is still mutual masturbation caused by one or more complex sexual defects. Some defects are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell. Of course not all having these abnormal tendencies.

Bottom line: gay unions, yes!!, gay marriage, impossible physically and biologically.

Then there is this:

All "Abrahamics" believe that their god created all of us and of course that includes the gay members of the human race. Also, those who have studied homosexuality have determined that there is no choice involved therefore gays are gay because god made them that way.

To wit:
o The Royal College of Psy-chiatrists stated in 2007:

“ Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of ge-netic factors and the early ut-erine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.[60] "

"Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hor-mone surge. In this way, our gender identi-ty (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender ident–ity or s-exual orientation."[8

Of course, those gays who belong to Abrahamic religions abide by the rules of no gay adultery or gay fornication allowed.

If the president plans on running in 2011, he had better rethink his position. Frankly, unless a stellar Republican candidate emerges, I can't imagine myself not voting Democrat. However, I can imagine myself not voting at all.

NB, Mr. Obama. I am not alone among Democrats.

Meant to write 2012, needless to say. I still wonder that so many religionistos spend so much of their time contemplating penises, vaginas, etc., as opposed to, say, social justice. But, hey, that's just me.

Opinions do change over time, even biblical views. At one time, our laws permitted slavery and slavery was vigorously defended by people of no faith and great faith. At one time, women were virtual chattel. It has taken centuries to overcome the Judeo/Christian biblical/religious view that women were the instigators of sin and the great fall of man, that they were not smart enough to manage their own finances or to vote. Imagine the view of women today by a person who lived 150 years ago - it is extraordinary how societies views have changed. Just 150 years against the centuries in which the old view was held.

The view of gay marriage is going through that transition from "Impossible! A sin!, Unnatural!" to being of no more notice than a woman in the voting booth.

Denying the civic benefits of marriage to a couple because they are the same sex is unequal treatment. It is of no public importance if a particular church chooses not to consecrate or bless a gay union as long as the state recognizes it equally to that of a straight marriage. Churches must not be coerced by government. But, government must also not be coerced by churches. They are not meant to occupy the same realm. The realm of tax breaks and legal options are the realm of government.

Yes, gay couples should get all the tax breaks and legal protections that straight couples get.

yeal9,

"From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, gay sexual activity is still mutual masturbation caused by one or more complex sexual defects."

That is such a pile of garbage we will need 1000 trash trucks to haul it away.

"Bottom line: gay unions, yes!!, gay marriage, impossible physically and biologically."

Regardless of your desires, CIVIL Marraige is whatever the courts say it is. Civil marriage is a purely legal construct/contract meant to guarantee legal rights. Procreation or the desire to procreate has nothing to do with CIVIL marriage.

If you want to have it be so then ALL civil marraige must be stopped and the state must then ONLY grant Civil Unions and all laws must change to reflect same.

yeal, why do you care so much who's on top? What does it matter to you? Are you aware that straight people do some of the very same things that gay people do that you find so icky? Should straight people who like non-procrative combinations of organs, orifices, and/or objects be barred from marrying?
Marriage is physically possible for those who can sign or make their mark on a license, regardless of their ability or lack thereof to procreate. All legal marriage physically involves is signing a piece of paper called a marriage license in the presence of a judge and two witnesses. There are no stipulations on getting nekkid. You're married even if you never have sex with your spouse.

Hmmm lets see, in gay sexual activity, who plays the guy and who plays the gal? Who is on top and who is on the bottom? A coin flip? To say the least, an unusual situation. Then there are those "made in China" toys/strap-ons. Lets hope the FDA has checked them for lead and other toxic components. And do said "toys" come with sanitizers and/or sterilization instructions.

Lots and lots of "gays" doing their hot and heavy things on Internet tube sites but nothing about coin flipping, who is on first, and sanitizers sites?? There must be some "Gaying It For Dummies" books out there somewhere. Hmmm, one wonders if said books/sites have to have FDA and CDC approval??

Is said activity wrong and worthy of a trip to hell? Of course not but to the general heterosexual population it is yucky, unusual and not natural and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong. Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community.

With that mind set, approval by the majority is not always sanctioned in law.

And after all of this rhetoric, gay "marriages/unions" simply simplify and somewhat sanitize what are still "yucky" acts caused by a variant gene(s) and/or hormone imbalance. One wonders if stem cell research will find a cure??

Hmmm, would the embryos formed from the sperm of gay guys and the eggs from gay gals make more ethical embryos for this and other types of research?? "

Impressive list of gay people who did not let their yucky defect get in the way of being a contribution to society. Unfortunately, they were not able to contribute to the evolutionary process of DNA improvement via procreation.
And one will never know whether they would have achieved even greater achievements without said defect.

And this significant concern for both homosexuals and heterosexuals:

It is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone.
from the CDC-2006

"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remin a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

More evidence:
http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/20/yes-oral-sex-is-sex-and-it-can-boost-cancer-risk/?npt=NP1

"Yes, oral sex is sex, and it can boost cancer risk-

Here's a crucial message for teens: Oral sex carries many of the same risks as vaginal sex."

It is hilarious that you blame gay sex for abortions.

Gay sex AND straight sex can result in the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases (that would be the DEFINITION of "sexually-transmitted"). However, only straight sex can result in pregnancy. Most of us learned this stuff in fifth grade.

I think we should just split marriage and civil unions altogether. If you want a marriage, you go to your religious institution of choice. If you want a civil union, you go to the civil authority. Since the legal and monetary benefits come from the civil authority, if you want those, you get a civil union. You can get both a marriage and civil union, or you can just get one, your choice. Religious institutions can perform marriages but not civil unions; civil authorities can perform civil unions but not marriages. That way everyone can have equal protection under the law of civil unions, gay or straight, and religious institutions can marry or not marry whoever they want. Semantical problem solved.

"Of course not but to the general heterosexual population it is yucky, unusual and not natural and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong."

The opinion of the heterosexual population (of which I am am member) is of no relevance. And eduacted people no longer associate AIDS or HIV exclusively with gays.

"Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community."

Irrelevant.

"With that mind set, approval by the majority is not always sanctioned in law."
What the majority thinks is of no consequence.

"And after all of this rhetoric, gay "marriages/unions" simply simplify and somewhat sanitize what are still "yucky" acts caused by a variant gene(s) and/or hormone imbalance. One wonders if stem cell research will find a cure??"

It is not a disease so it does not need a cure. It is no different than race or hair/eye color or handedness. They are only "yucky acts" to people whose opinions have no bearing in US law.

"Unfortunately, they were not able to contribute to the evolutionary process of DNA improvement via procreation. "

Actually since they ARE able to procreate with science's help they can contribute.

"And one will never know whether they would have achieved even greater achievements without said defect."

Since it is not a defect it is unlikely to have relevance.

"And this significant concern for both homosexuals and heterosexuals:"

Not for intelligent ones. It is only a concern for fools.

"It is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone. "

Which is not germaine to the issue of same-sex marriage so the rest of your post is off-topic.

Actually the dangers of both heterosexual and homosexual sex are relevant to the topic since dangers are significantly reduced in monogamous relationships i.e. marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals.

And obviously abortions are the result of irresponsible heterosexuals both in not using birth control methods properly and also not having respect of human life in any of its forms. STDs are of course a plague on both irresponsible heterosexuals and homosexuals.

yeal9,

"Actually the dangers of both heterosexual and homosexual sex are relevant to the topic since dangers are significantly reduced in monogamous relationships i.e. marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals."

OR Civil Marriages for BOTH Heterosexuals AND HOMOSEXUALS/LEsbians since you have yet to show one legally valid reason why same-sex couples cannot have civil marriages versus civil unions.

Don't mind Yeal, aka CCNL. He is not right in the head. I think that anti-gay opinions such as his, which are obviously delusional, actually help gay people, because it shows clearly the fundamental disease of homophobia.

It is easy to accept same sex marriage if you block your mind from thinking about their inimate life. Besides, hetero forms of intimacy -have been told- are wilder (and yucky) than you can immagine.

"Hmmm lets see, in gay sexual activity, who plays the guy and who plays the gal? Who is on top and who is on the bottom? A coin flip?"

That's your problem? Which one you get to ignore at a car dealership?

Either that, or you have an incredibly boring sex life. Even in your head.

Mind your own business, not someone elses.

"Hmmm lets see, in gay sexual activity, who plays the guy and who plays the gal? Who is on top and who is on the bottom? A coin flip?"

That's your problem? Which one you get to ignore at a car dealership?

Either that, or you have an incredibly boring sex life. Even in your head.

Mind your own business, not someone elses.

In case you missed this very important note:

Actually the dangers of both heterosexual and homosexual sex are relevant to the topic since dangers are significantly reduced in monogamous relationships i.e. marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals.

And obviously abortions are the result of irresponsible heterosexuals both in not using birth control methods properly and also not having respect of human life in any of its forms. STDs are of course a plague on both irresponsible heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Eliminate all conservative Christians. Only the elimination of all conservative Christians will allow all Americans to be free and the world to no longer have to live in fear of the U.S.A.'s imperialist, terrorist holy war. The conservative ideology has never helped mankind in any way, it has not only never helped mankind in anyway, it has oppressed, murdered, raped and killed all those in it's way to gain power. History shows us this. Fact shows us this. James Madison, the "Father of the U.S. Constitution", along with many founders of this country, regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliations, knew keeping politics and religion separate not only preserves each, but helps them flourish: "The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church and the State."

What exactly does DOMA defend my marriage from?
My gay friends' marriages have no more effect on my mariage than my straight friends' marriages.
My marriage is about me and my husband - period. There are only two people on the whole planet who have the power to damage or destroy it - him and me.
If your marriage is so tenuous and so fragile that it can be irreparably damaged by other people's marriages, other people aren't the problem.

Why is everyone pretending that there is a difference between marriage and civil union? Everyone who gets married signs a license, and everyone who gets married undergoes a change in tax status, etc. Each marriage is performed by a person authorized by the state.

The only difference between getting married in a church, and at a courthouse is the venue, and some of the words that are spoken by the celebrant.

If a church wants to act like an exclusive club, and prevent membership by some persons, that's perfectly OK. But for the government to pick out a minority group of citizens and deny them civil rights that are enjoyed by the rest of the population is not only wrong - it would be un-American. President Obama did exactly the right thing, and should encourage the Supreme Court of review the DOMA.

You cannot use the Bible to support the government giving heterosexuals the right to marriage licenses.

During Bible times, all that was required for a man and a woman to be married is they have mutually consensual sexual intercourse and the woman not already be married nor betrothed. It did not matter if the man already had one or more wives.

I learned by talking to a county courthouse clerk who handles the marriage license applications and filings that marriage vows nor wedding rituals are even required. All the couple has to do is find someone who is authorized by the state that I am in to sign and file the marriage license.

Marriage licenses are civil documents and in my opinion, all marriages are civil unions to begin with.

yeal9,

"In case you missed this very important note"

Actually it is completely unimportant note.

If gay marriage becomes legal it will directly affect our freedom of religion--our FIRST amendment right. People who don't allow gay marriage in their churches, synagogues, or other places of worship, will lose tax-exempt status and eventually be shut down for "discrimination".

Homosexuals already have all the rights that heterosexuals do. I'm a heterosexual, and I too cannot marry someone of my same gender. The difference is preference--I don't want to marry someone of the same sex.

Do we really want to start basing our laws on sexual preference? Do we really want to go down that road? There are a lot of differing sexual preferences out there. Are we going to protect them all?

Some people sexually prefer children--If our legal system continues to push sexual preference as rights, I would not be surprised to see people standing up in our courts a few years down the road and defending the behavior of child predators.

I can hear it now: "Your honor...This man can't help it...he was born that way, You can't discriminate against him for his sexual preference! That's hate talk!"

ARRKTNASTON, what are you so afraid of?

Right now, any minister, rabbi or church can refuse to perform any religious service they want for any person, for any reason. It happens all the time, and the government does not - and cannot - interfere.

And you do have the right to marry the person of your choice. The government placed no limits on your choices for your spouse. But you want the government to make special restrictions on the rights of a specific minority, to satisfy your religious convictions.

Do you want America to become a place where the government restricts rights to a minority, and everyone does not have equal rights and protections under the law?

ARRKYNASTON:

That is the most inane non-argument I've ever heard. Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry who they want simply because you wouldn't want to may someone of the same gender? That doesn't even make sense. Homosexuals do not have all of the same rights you do. You have every right to marry who you want, who happens to be someone of the opposite gender, and get all of the civil benefits granted by the civil authority. In only, what is it, five states and DC do homosexuals have the right to marry who they want, and get the civil benefits. Not all "civil unions" get all of the rights normally granted by the civil authority. How absurd, that a civil authority can't grant civil benefits, because religious institutions don't like it. Not being allowed to do something is far different from not wanting to do something.

We don't allow predators to marry children, even if that is their "preference" because it physically and psychologically harms children. Two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender who get married harms absolutely no one. Moreover, it doesn't prevent people from believing in god, going to their religious place of worship, or participating in any other religious activity.

I would agree that religious institutions shouldn't be forced to perform a marriage (for a heterosexual or homosexual couple) by a civil authority. That's what we have Justices of the Peace for.

"If gay marriage becomes legal it will directly affect our freedom of religion--our FIRST amendment right. People who don't allow gay marriage in their churches, synagogues, or other places of worship, will lose tax-exempt status and eventually be shut down for "discrimination"."

Actually EVERY law that allows same-sex CIVIL marriage has specific language in it that prevent just that sort of thing. Therfore you are lying. Adiitionally even if a state tried to go after a religious instistution the Supreme Court would not allow it. Again CIVL marriage, not Relgious marrriage.

"Homosexuals already have all the rights that heterosexuals do. I'm a heterosexual, and I too cannot marry someone of my same gender. The difference is preference--I don't want to marry someone of the same sex."

That is the typical garbage argument. The correct analogy is the idea of two people of different race or different religion not being able to marry the person of thier choice.

"Do we really want to start basing our laws on sexual preference?"
The correct term is sexual orientation. And what we ARE REQUIRED TO DO is make sure that all people are treated equally.

"There are a lot of differing sexual preferences out there. Are we going to protect them all? "
Again a fallacious statement. There are only a few Sexual ORIENTATIONS out there, Heterosexual, Homosexual/Lesbian and Bisexual. Transgender and Transexual might be included.

"Some people sexually prefer children--If our legal system continues to push sexual preference as rights, I would not be surprised to see people standing up in our courts a few years down the road and defending the behavior of child predators. "

Horsehockey. Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Pedophilia IS. Your argument is the typical lie that mindless fools try to put forward hoping that other mindless fools will fall for them.

If gay marriage becomes legal it will directly affect our freedom of religion--our FIRST amendment right. People who don't allow gay marriage in their churches, synagogues, or other places of worship, will lose tax-exempt status and eventually be shut down for "discrimination".
******************************************
Bullshyte. If a Catholic man wants to marry a divorced Protestant woman, can the government force a Catholic priest to perform the ceremony? NO.
If a Jewish woman wants to marry a Muslim man, can the government force a rabbi to perform the ceremony? NO.
Clergy aren't even required by law to marry members of their own congregations.
In short, no member of the clergy is required by law to perform any wedding ceremony that s/he doesn't wish to perform, regardless of the reason.

Homosexuals already have all the rights that heterosexuals do. I'm a heterosexual, and I too cannot marry someone of my same gender. The difference is preference--I don't want to marry someone of the same sex.
*******************************************You have the right to marry the consenting adult to whom you are romantically attracted. Homosexuals do not have that right.
If gay marriage is legalized, you will still have the same right to marry the opposite sex consenting adult of your choosing. You will lose nothing.

Some people sexually prefer children--If our legal system continues to push sexual preference as rights, I would not be surprised to see people standing up in our courts a few years down the road and defending the behavior of child predators.
*******************************************
Are grown men who like to have sex with 8-year-old girls currently allowed to marry children, as long as they're of the opposite sex? NO. Marriage is a LEGAL union between CONSENTING ADULTS. Allowing same-sex consenting adults to marry will no more create a mandate to allow men to marry little boys than our current laws allowing opposite sex consenting adults to marry creates a mandate to allow men to marry little girls or women to marry little boys.