So this is some pretty big news! Yesterday, Barack Obama‘s administration took a strong stance on the Defense of Marriage Act. An announcement was made that the Department of Justice will no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3, the portion which essentially bans the recognition of same-sex marriage.
Though the president still claims that he’s “grappling” with the issue, this represents a huge step in the right direction. How did you react when you first heard the news? And for all the political savvy folks out there, what does this mean for the future of marriage equality in the United States?
– Dewitt
To check out more on this topic, follow the JUMP:
About Obama’s stance:
And a few discussion-worthy responses:
And here’s Rachel Maddow, to wash the bad taste out of your mouth:
I prefer “Domestic Partners” because “marriage” requires/implies that there’s children involved (Then I wouldn’t be gay if I wanted children; No thank you :-)~
its a blatantly political act. Obama realizes as far as his re-election goes, he’s already lost the kind of voters whose support hinges on opposition to things like DOMA, and that he desperately needs to shore up his base.
Personally, I’d rather see him stop defending torture and unlimited detention — and start prosecuting Yoo, Bolton, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush for their support/authorization of torture.
Woody,your gay because you dont want children? Does anyone else think this sounds stupid?Incase you havent heard,alot of gay people are parents already,without a licence. Sorry,but i dont like ignorance.
From the few posting here, I can tell no one cares about this subject anymore.
As far as Obama’s re-election chances with gays…who else are they going to vote for??? A right wing republican, (which is surely going to get the nod to run for Pres).
This President has done and will do more for the gay cause then ANY President has done or will do for gays in the next 10 years and maybe more…
He has my vote for 2012!!!
Marriage doesn’t at all imply that there are children. A couple may choose to have children within marriage, but there is no such implication. After all, many people have children outside of marriage. That just doesn’t stick. What’s more important than that is simply the symbolism behind what marriage is. Also what LGBT people are looking for is those rights behind marriage that opposite sex couples have that would not be granted in a Domestic Partnership. As Rachel said, there are 1,138 federal rights and responsibilities that opposite-sex couples have, that are not given to same-sex couples. Granted, having children and everything associated with that is within those rights, but having children is not the only reason to call it “marriage.”
Everyone has their own opinion,
I was taught in science that the marriage of two things, PRODUCES something new like, a metal alloy(ie.bronze) or, a baby(?).
So, I don’t consider childless Heteros to be truely married, IMO
And, knowing what I know about the unbalanced-union between Heteros (XX & XY are not opposites), I would prefer not to be associated with them in any way 😉
Therefore, since countries like Australia have domestic partnerships that have all the rights of a marriage, the term “Domestic Partner” is my preference.
Nevertheless, Equal Rights are what’s important 😉
Who’s ignorant here?
If Gay = Homosexual then YES being Gay means not having children. Since, two men or two women can’t have children, the last time I checked (?) lol
I have to ask. If he really cared about the issue wouldn’t he seek to over turn DOMA? Oh, that’s right his opinion about gay men and women is still “evolving.” Nice to know our black President thinks “separate but equal” is an acceptable answer to the issue.
Why dose any of this matter anyway? We (the gay community at large) are the most self hating group out there. Best example this forum. “he’s to fat,thin, hairy,smooth, or ugly”. When Gaga put out her “Born this way” song, so many were quick to bash it. So what if it sonds like Madonna. Dose it make you feel good, or say a positive thing about being gay? Stop bashing progress even if its baby steps. Progress is progress.If I were Obama and saw half the bitching and bashing, I’d say Fuck You all. Do it yourself.
To Woof: BRAVO!
Well said 😉
I agree with Jeff, How the fuck does being gay mean not wanting children, There are numerous gay couples that are parents, Woody if you think you are gay because you don’t want children you need to do some soul searching , that is the most ignorant thing i have ever heard, and you have the balls to ask who is ignorant??? LMAO!!!
Do you even own a dictionary?
What’s your definition of the words, Gay, Homo & Hetero ?
Have you forgotten what bisexuality is ?
I don’t like anyone putting words in my mouth so;
First of all I never said I was gay soley because I didn’t want chidren (Jeff and now you said that) ! Although, since I don’t want to have children(In this world), being gay takes care of that for me.
Are you gay ? If so, then, Why are YOU gay ?
I suppose it’s for purely-selfish reasons, because it make you “feel good”(?), instead of feeling good about yourself (?) Or, is it purely about selfish, self-gratifying sex for you ?
How pathetic would that be? LOL
Maybe your trying to justify your guilt by mixing up the meanings of the words you describe yourself with ! FOTFLOL
Go read a dictionary and leave me alone, ROTFLOL 🙂
There sure are a lot of ignorant people in this world 🙁
Some these statements are special. Anywho, we need to be realistic about the overall process. This is politics, that’s how it is and within his terms we will repeal DOMA
But marriage doesn’t at all imply children. And the marriage of a man and a woman doesn’t produce a child. Marriage itself would produce a bond between the two partners, nothing else… I think your thoughts are a little skewed here…. Just because the ideal of marriage has been skewed by heterosexual couples, we don’t have to call it something else…. Marriage is still marriage, and we gays can show what true marriage can be.
ok, sure. granted, gay people can’t “have” children, have meaning the sexual process between a man and a woman by which a child is formed through maturation within the woman’s womb. But gay people can “have” children, meaning take under one’s wing and protect a child born outside of their control, i.e. adoption. I don’t know how you think this shouldn’t be done under gay couples because we naturally can’t produce children.
And to answer your question, I’m gay because I find men attractive and want to be in a physical, emotional, romantic relationship with a man “to have and to hold, until death do us part.” It’s not about gratification. It’s the same reason straight people have relationships and marriage.
I’m trying to be very clear because, although you claim to be clear yourself and are suggesting that those responding to you here are “mixing up…meanings” as you said, you’re not being very clear as to what you’re trying to claim.
So then you’re saying that you’re gay for purely, selfish reasons.
And, I’m saying that I’m gay for much more than that.
Simply said, being gay to ME is more than my own personal satisfaction.
But, you still don’t seem to know the differences in (or are avoiding) the defintions of the words, Homo, Hetero, Bisexual and, Gay 😉
If you behave like a gay person sexually but, still THINK like a hetero/breeder then you are NOT truly Gay (Bi maybe).
I think that’s totally selfish and shallow.
Personally I despise heterosexuals (in this perverse world). Because they are evil, cruel, selfish/self-motivated people who think this world is acceptable to bring innocent souls to life, knowing that they, could have birth-defects and, will live a life of pain, disease and die most likely in an unpleasant way. All for they’re own personal/selfish desires/motivations.
And, I would never give my time and resources to a child only to have that child grow up and become a, breeder or, perverse-heterosexual.
You see, I know that men and women in this world are NOT biologically compatable because they are not true opposites(XX & XY). And, anyone who knows how everything works chemically(ie. Law of opposites), knows that only true opposites make anything stable and whole.
Ask yourself, if you dare, why there are birth-defects and diseases ?
You see I’ve thought about this subject Deeply & ALOT 😉
So, of course this is only my opinion and I didn’t resort to name calling until after I was called names (ie. ignorant) and, attacked for my own personal opinion(s).
Now, I’ve said all that I’m gonna say about this since everyone has their own opinion that I accept out of respect 😉
If you want to discuss this issue further with me then e-mail me at: pyurenergy@yahoo.com.
Maybe, but I doubt it, Manhunt could have a discussion on ” Why are you Gay ?”. LOL
That would be interesting to me 😉
I don’t want to be like heterosexuals and apparently you do(?)
So, we agree to disagree 😉
I don’t want to be like heterosexuals and apparently you do(?)
So, we agree to disagree 😉
Woody,
We certainly disagree, because you’re wrong. The term “marriage” isn’t scientific, and if it was used in your science education, that coursework was lacking. And even if it were correct in that case, a word can have more than one denotation (ie specific meaning), and certainly can have more than one connotation (inferred meaning). Your argument is simply wrong.
It may indeed be blatantly political. It’s also the legally correct decision.
Topman – the reason to shore up one’s base is not because they may otherwise vote for the opposing side, but because they may otherwise not show up to vote at all.
I’m not interested in your need to argue over what word(s) we use to describe what is basically an Equal Rights issue.
You can call it whatever you want and I’ll call it what I want to call it ;-)~
You are simply too petty for me to waste my time with 😉
P.S. In addition to you having contradicted yourself by, first saying that my definition of marriage is wrong and then, saying that there are “more than one denotation/connotaion(ie meaning)” to the word; The definition of marriage in my dictionary clearly states that it’s between a man and a woman. And, I have no interest in being like heterosexuals, Period.
Bye ~~~
Lord…Woody…could you stir it up any more.
Anyway, this is great news (Obama’s stance, not Woody’s). At least he is open to grappeling with the idea and not holding to outdated religious beliefs. It all comes down to EQUAL rights for ALL citizens. We should settle for nothing less, no matter what name we end up putting on it. Domestic Partners, Marriage or some new term. Down with DOMA. Down with discrimination.
lol,
You’re right; It’s about Equal Rights 😉
Although, the dictionary clearly states that a marriage is between a man & a woman, LOL !
Woody has a right to his OWN opinion. Can’t you people let him have it. Just get on with your lives for God’s Sake.
No Woody…they want to argue…and bitch for hours. Read some of the other blogs. It never stops…YOU have to believe like THEY do, or they will bitch and post for days.
lol, I know.
That’s why I like to goad them to see them make fools of themselves 😉 lol
So by saying you don’t want to be “like heterosexuals” does that mean you’ll stop doing anything they do? I guess that rules out going to clubs, having friends, talking, cooking, I could go on. We shouldn’t at all be like the heterosexuals. So we’ll start by not marrying, but continue by performing other actions unlike the way heterosexuals do. After all, that’s what you’re implying. You said “I have no interest in being like heterosexuals, Period. [sic]” So let’s abandon any way of living as they do and live our new, gay way. Is anyone else getting how ridiculous this sounds?
This makes no sense. You do realize that it was breeders that brought you into the world, and every other person in this world. How am I avoiding the definitions of “homo, hetero, bi, and gay”? You haven’t even established those definitions so how can I ignore them?
And who do you think you are? If it weren’t for heterosexuals, no one would be here on this earth. I don’t know what planet you grew up on, but here, we have parents and don’t just appear out of nowhere. I don’t understand what you mean by “men and women in this world are NOT biologically compatable [sic] because they are not true opposites(XX & XY).” This makes no sense whatsoever. What point are you trying to make?
And to answer your question about birth defects and diseases, they exist primarily because humans are not the only organism on this planet. Other things exist and some of those things use us to sustain themselves. You need to get down off your high horse and realize that you’re not the most important person in the world.
The problem is that the Justice department is the Executive Branch (White House) does not have the legal authority to make or declare something being constitutional or not, it is up to the Legislative branch (Congress) to create law and up to the Judicial branch (Supreme Court) to determine when the law of the land is unconstitutional, period. In this case, the Execute branch is doing the Supreme Court’s job and that is a scary proposition. Separation of powers was created for a specific reason. It is up to the Justice department to vigorously defend ALL laws of the land before Federal court and this declaration is illegal on its face.
Everyone should be outraged instead of partying over this decision, yet we lePlt the subject overshadow the legal precedent. This is a very slippery slope. While it is a law you do not like in this case, it will be many more important laws that this precedent will be used to abstain from defending.
Please no flames – at least be educated and have some knowledge of our constitutional and system of government. 🙂