Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Cheers for the President

Extreme Peach





Posts: 1382
(1382 all sites)
Registered: 3/27/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2012 at 08:33 PM

Despite his own religious background and struggles with the semantics of marriage versus civil unions, etc., the President reasons his way to an ethical position in support of Gay Marriage. I am delighted to hear him go on national TV in an election year and make this statement. As long as the government is in the benefits business, there is no other way that is ethically acceptable to me. I'm sure this doesn't sit well with many in this country, which makes this public position buy the president more laudable. The social enlightenment may come yet

 
Replies:

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11437
(11442 all sites)
Registered: 8/21/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2012 at 08:50 PM
Probably not quite a Profiles in Courage moment, as public opinion is already headed this way, but still commendable for any politician to (finally) tell the truth on how he feels. A good day for the Equal Protection clause, and a bad one for those who think their religious beliefs should be legislated.

I'm sure the cynics will see some political calculation in this. Which will actually be good, since it will acknowledge that more votes than not are on the side of equality.

 

Peach Head



Karma:
Posts: 148
(148 all sites)
Registered: 5/2/2012
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2012 at 08:59 PM
quote:
...it will acknowledge that more votes than not are on the side of equality.

Not in North Carolina.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/us/north-carolina-voters-pass-same-sex-ma rriage-ban.html

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2012 at 08:59 PM
I agree. I voted against the silly marriage amendment in NC yesterday, though it passed predictably by a wide margin.

From a position of liberty, I see two compelling reasons for support. No govt that claims to support the rights of free people has the authority to use the law as a means of limiting the free association of said people. And in keeping with that; we should have long ago removed govt from any involvement regarding marriage. That's a spiritual bond that two people chose to make, founded in religious traditions, and should be kept there. Issues of property and children can be taken care of under contract law.

I wonder if the D's are having buyer's remorse over choosing Charlotte for their convention. It's a right-to-work state that just soundly defeated any hope of gay marriage, and Obama is going to have his big outdoor Barack-athon speech and revival meeting from Bank of America Stadium. None of this seems to align to their themes very well. Wonder who's in charge of optics in the WH.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1382
(1382 all sites)
Registered: 3/27/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2012 at 08:59 PM
quote:
Probably not quite a Profiles in Courage moment, as public opinion is already headed this way, but still commendable for any politician to (finally) tell the truth on how he feels. A good day for the Equal Protection clause, and a bad one for those who think their religious beliefs should be legislated.

I'm sure the cynics will see some political calculation in this. Which will actually be good, since it will acknowledge that more votes than not are on the side of equality.


Public opinion is certainly far more balanced than it used to be, but as other states line up to block equality like NC voted to do, I think the president's words are timely. I would have preferred he came out and made the statement a long before, but at least he didn't wait until after the election. In the wake of the push-back, it was right for him to take a position now and he did so.

 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2956
(2962 all sites)
Registered: 7/14/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2012 at 09:02 PM
Congrats to the President. Glad to see he finally evolved to the Dick Cheney position

 

____________________
Mark Ramsey

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2012 at 09:04 PM
Nothing like staying zeroed in on the really important issues.
 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2012 at 09:05 PM
quote:
Congrats to the President. Glad to see he finally evolved to the Dick Cheney position
When others change their mind, it's a flip flop.

When BO does it; it's evolution.

Gotta love the word games.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1382
(1382 all sites)
Registered: 3/27/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2012 at 09:09 PM
quote:
I agree. I voted against the silly marriage amendment in NC yesterday, though it passed predictably by a wide margin.

From a position of liberty, I see two compelling reasons for support. No govt that claims to support the rights of free people has the authority to use the law as a means of limiting the free association of said people. And in keeping with that; we should have long ago removed govt from any involvement regarding marriage. That's a spiritual bond that two people chose to make, founded in religious traditions, and should be kept there. Issues of property and children can be taken care of under contract law.

I wonder if the D's are having buyer's remorse over choosing Charlotte for their convention. It's a right-to-work state that just soundly defeated any hope of gay marriage, and Obama is going to have his big outdoor Barack-athon speech and revival meeting from Bank of America Stadium. None of this seems to align to their themes very well. Wonder who's in charge of optics in the WH.



I agree, Fuji. Maybe one day, once all are on equal footing under the law, we can divorce the idea of "marriage" from our life partnerships. Those for which the word has meaning, can attribute that characterization to their union. For those of that are a little embarrassed by the word, we can call it something more secular. But we have to get everyone in the same boat with regard to the benefits of "marriage", before we can abandon the term in reference to the contract and taxes nature of the unions.
And glad to hear you voted in the minority yesterday......sad that it went the way it did in NC.

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1382
(1382 all sites)
Registered: 3/27/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2012 at 09:15 PM
quote:
quote:
Congrats to the President. Glad to see he finally evolved to the Dick Cheney position
When others change their mind, it's a flip flop.

When BO does it; it's evolution.

Gotta love the word games.


If you read his views since he was a State Senator, you will see that he has always supported equal rights, but was sympathetic to the religious defense of marriage. His remarks today were clear that his position on that has changed over the years as he has been able to more clearly see the detriment of that position for gay citizens. If every politician took the time to be thoughtful and rational in their explanation of a topic, we would likely use the term "flip-flop" less often. We should applaud him for owning his views and arriving, through reason, not faith or blind loyalty, at a different conclusion. If all of our leaders modeled this kind of thoughtfulness we would be a much better nation.

[Edited on 5/10/2012 by Vanistheman]

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1382
(1382 all sites)
Registered: 3/27/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2012 at 09:25 PM
quote:
Nothing like staying zeroed in on the really important issues.


Well, I guess for some of us the idea of institutionalized second class citizens is as important as the debates on how to best create jobs or pay for this or that. Of course the economic course of the country is important, but there are no easy answers and policy can't fairly be judged in the short run. Things like gay marriage should be a gimmie and it is a black-eye on this country that we still have to grapple with this religiously driven intolerance. So when we get those moments where somebody actually challenges the ritualized status quo to examine their reasoning, it a day to celebrate.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11437
(11442 all sites)
Registered: 8/21/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2012 at 09:28 PM
quote:
I agree. I voted against the silly marriage amendment in NC yesterday, though it passed predictably by a wide margin.

From a position of liberty, I see two compelling reasons for support. No govt that claims to support the rights of free people has the authority to use the law as a means of limiting the free association of said people. And in keeping with that; we should have long ago removed govt from any involvement regarding marriage. That's a spiritual bond that two people chose to make, founded in religious traditions, and should be kept there. Issues of property and children can be taken care of under contract law.

I wonder if the D's are having buyer's remorse over choosing Charlotte for their convention. It's a right-to-work state that just soundly defeated any hope of gay marriage, and Obama is going to have his big outdoor Barack-athon speech and revival meeting from Bank of America Stadium. None of this seems to align to their themes very well. Wonder who's in charge of optics in the WH.


It's people like you that give libertarians a good name!

While I agree w/ you in theory that domestic unions do not necessarily need a gov't stamp of approval, I do not think changing the law on it would accomplish much. The law favors predictibility, and we have a long history of handling family law in the courts, and the precedents that come w/ that. To cast all that aside for some new scheme would throw the system into disarray.

I doubt there is much hand-wringing over Charlotte. The vote in NC was easily foreseen, coming as it was coupled w/ a GOP primary (was there much else of import on the ballot to bring out Dems?). W/ NC going for Obama in '08, this might give him another (slim) chance to win it again this time.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3911
(3918 all sites)
Registered: 11/19/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2012 at 09:33 PM
In May 2004, my home state of Massachusetts became the first in the nation to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I remember, at that time, all the naysayers, conservatives and generally backward-thinking groups all were saying that society would collapse, blah blah blah. Well, life in Massachusetts didn't change at all. The sky didn't fall, the world didn't come to an end. It's nice to know that it was my home state that got the ball rolling on this issue.

It's nice to see the President come out in support of same-sex marriage, even if it took him forever (Ralph Nader was definitely far ahead on this issue before others spoke in favor of it).

As for North Carolina, the results down there didn't surprise me one bit, being the home of such forward-looking people like the late Jesse Helms.

 

____________________


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2012 at 09:43 PM
quote:
quote:
I agree. I voted against the silly marriage amendment in NC yesterday, though it passed predictably by a wide margin.

From a position of liberty, I see two compelling reasons for support. No govt that claims to support the rights of free people has the authority to use the law as a means of limiting the free association of said people. And in keeping with that; we should have long ago removed govt from any involvement regarding marriage. That's a spiritual bond that two people chose to make, founded in religious traditions, and should be kept there. Issues of property and children can be taken care of under contract law.

I wonder if the D's are having buyer's remorse over choosing Charlotte for their convention. It's a right-to-work state that just soundly defeated any hope of gay marriage, and Obama is going to have his big outdoor Barack-athon speech and revival meeting from Bank of America Stadium. None of this seems to align to their themes very well. Wonder who's in charge of optics in the WH.


It's people like you that give libertarians a good name!

While I agree w/ you in theory that domestic unions do not necessarily need a gov't stamp of approval, I do not think changing the law on it would accomplish much. The law favors predictibility, and we have a long history of handling family law in the courts, and the precedents that come w/ that. To cast all that aside for some new scheme would throw the system into disarray.

I doubt there is much hand-wringing over Charlotte. The vote in NC was easily foreseen, coming as it was coupled w/ a GOP primary (was there much else of import on the ballot to bring out Dems?). W/ NC going for Obama in '08, this might give him another (slim) chance to win it again this time.
Yeah, I think we lost the whole 'govt association with marriage' issue somewhere back in the dark ages, so it's a little late now to change that course.

You're right re: the NC ballot yesterday. There was only the Republican primary and the one amendment issue. I happily voted for Ron Paul and against the amendment, so I'm a fringe lunatic to most of the Republicans here - and damn proud of it!

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19467
(19481 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2012 at 09:46 PM
Then again, Massachessetts gave us Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank. I'm not sure which is worse.

Meanwhile, good to see the Left all for State's Rights all of a sudden;

quote:
http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-obamas-bullshit-gay-marriage-announcement# 13366064585933&{


Barack Obama’s Bull **** Gay Marriage Announcement


ABC News has only released one brief clip of Obama's conversation about gay marriage today, but it seems fairly clear from the network's coverage that his announcement amounts to much less than meets the eye. He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn't believe they have a right to do so. This is like saying that black children and white children ought to attend the same schools, but if the people of Alabama reject that notion—what are you gonna do?

The key language in the ABC News write-up is this:


The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

On this afternoon's special broadcast, Jake Tapper echoed that point: "The president said he thought this was a state-by-state issue."

Well, before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state issue, too. So was slavery. There are 44 states in which gay men and women are currently barred from marrying one another. Obama's position is that, while he would have voted the other way, those 44 states are perfectly within their rights to arbitrarily restrict the access of certain individuals to marriage rights based solely on their sexual orientation.

That is a half-assed, cowardly cop-out. There are currently at least three cases winding their way toward federal courts that address the issue of whether (among other things) the equal protection clause of the constitution guarantees gay men and women the same access to marriage rights as heterosexual men and women—the Proposition 8 case, in which David Boies and Ted Olson challenged California's ban on gay marriage, and several challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars gay men and woman from receiving federal marriage benefits and allows states to refuse to recognize valid gay marriages. Obama's Justice Department has admirably declined to defend the constitutionality of DOMA. But the position he enunciated today is in opposition to Boies and Olson: Obama is saying that if he were a judge, he would have rejected Boies and Olson's constitutional arguments and affirmed the right of Californians to enshrine bigotry in their state constitution.

Equality is not a state-by-state issue. There is no reason other than ignorance and hatred that two men can get married in New York and not North Carolina. At a time when vindictive hucksters are rolling out anti-gay marriage amendments across the nation, and when conflicting state and federal laws portend an insoluble morass of divorce, custody, and estate issues, and when gay Americans are turning to the U.S. Constitution and the courts to seek an affirmation of their humanity, "it's a state-by-state issue" is a shameful dodge.

Is it a politically wise dodge? Maybe. This was obviously a hastily arranged interview—we're told that ABC News' Robin Roberts, who is close to Michelle Obama, was only tapped in the last 48 hours by the White House to come down—designed to clean up the mess left by Biden's pro-gay marriage comments in as advantageous way as possible. And for Obama to declare that he considers North Carolina and other states' bans on gay marriage to be unconstitutional would probably energize the GOP base. But those bans are unconstitutional. And anyone who supports their legitimacy—as Obama just did, in no uncertain terms—even if they oppose the policy, is adopting the retrograde position in the contemporary gay marriage debate. Obama is moving backward, not forward.


 

____________________

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1382
(1382 all sites)
Registered: 3/27/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/9/2012 at 09:55 PM
quote:
Then again, Massachessetts gave us Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank. I'm not sure which is worse.

Meanwhile, good to see the Left all for State's Rights all of a sudden;

quote:
http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-obamas-bullshit-gay-marriage-announcement# 13366064585933&{


Barack Obama’s Bull **** Gay Marriage Announcement


ABC News has only released one brief clip of Obama's conversation about gay marriage today, but it seems fairly clear from the network's coverage that his announcement amounts to much less than meets the eye. He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn't believe they have a right to do so. This is like saying that black children and white children ought to attend the same schools, but if the people of Alabama reject that notion—what are you gonna do?

The key language in the ABC News write-up is this:


The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

On this afternoon's special broadcast, Jake Tapper echoed that point: "The president said he thought this was a state-by-state issue."

Well, before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state issue, too. So was slavery. There are 44 states in which gay men and women are currently barred from marrying one another. Obama's position is that, while he would have voted the other way, those 44 states are perfectly within their rights to arbitrarily restrict the access of certain individuals to marriage rights based solely on their sexual orientation.

That is a half-assed, cowardly cop-out. There are currently at least three cases winding their way toward federal courts that address the issue of whether (among other things) the equal protection clause of the constitution guarantees gay men and women the same access to marriage rights as heterosexual men and women—the Proposition 8 case, in which David Boies and Ted Olson challenged California's ban on gay marriage, and several challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars gay men and woman from receiving federal marriage benefits and allows states to refuse to recognize valid gay marriages. Obama's Justice Department has admirably declined to defend the constitutionality of DOMA. But the position he enunciated today is in opposition to Boies and Olson: Obama is saying that if he were a judge, he would have rejected Boies and Olson's constitutional arguments and affirmed the right of Californians to enshrine bigotry in their state constitution.

Equality is not a state-by-state issue. There is no reason other than ignorance and hatred that two men can get married in New York and not North Carolina. At a time when vindictive hucksters are rolling out anti-gay marriage amendments across the nation, and when conflicting state and federal laws portend an insoluble morass of divorce, custody, and estate issues, and when gay Americans are turning to the U.S. Constitution and the courts to seek an affirmation of their humanity, "it's a state-by-state issue" is a shameful dodge.

Is it a politically wise dodge? Maybe. This was obviously a hastily arranged interview—we're told that ABC News' Robin Roberts, who is close to Michelle Obama, was only tapped in the last 48 hours by the White House to come down—designed to clean up the mess left by Biden's pro-gay marriage comments in as advantageous way as possible. And for Obama to declare that he considers North Carolina and other states' bans on gay marriage to be unconstitutional would probably energize the GOP base. But those bans are unconstitutional. And anyone who supports their legitimacy—as Obama just did, in no uncertain terms—even if they oppose the policy, is adopting the retrograde position in the contemporary gay marriage debate. Obama is moving backward, not forward.






Derek, your point is well taken. I found the retreat into states rights very disappointing. However, this doesn't change the fact that for the first time, a POTUS was willing to convey his personal beliefs in favor of gay marriage. I don't think that he finds these kind of bans as constitutional, but he is choosing his words wisely as he still hopes to win NC I don't deny there is politics involved, but I still choose to celebrate his willingness to express his personal views despite how they reflect position much of the country will never support.

[Edited on 5/10/2012 by Vanistheman]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 23381
(23380 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/10/2012 at 06:00 AM
quote:
Congrats to the President. Glad to see he finally evolved to the Dick Cheney position


Obama doesn't have a family member who's gay.

Do you really think Cheney would be for gay rights if he didn't have a daughter who was gay?

 

____________________
Quit!

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16603
(16603 all sites)
Registered: 6/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/10/2012 at 06:03 AM
quote:
quote:
Congrats to the President. Glad to see he finally evolved to the Dick Cheney position


Obama doesn't have a family member who's gay.

Do you really think Cheney would be for gay rights if he didn't have a daughter who was gay?


We'll never know Michael

 

____________________


R.I.P. Hugh Duty


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16603
(16603 all sites)
Registered: 6/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/10/2012 at 06:06 AM
Did he evolve to this position and hastily call a prseer with ABC news becuase it was the absolute right moment or was it because of him losing 40%+ points to a convicted felon in WV and the Wisconsin recall not going as planned...yet.

But I applaud him for finally stepping up, finally something I agree with him on.

 

____________________


R.I.P. Hugh Duty


 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 13728
(13982 all sites)
Registered: 2/10/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/10/2012 at 09:12 AM
any evolutionists want to weigh in on this one?

I'd be curious to see the link...if you know what I mean....


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9082
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 2/25/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/10/2012 at 09:22 AM
quote:
Despite his own religious background and struggles with the semantics


The semantics is what is making me crazy. Even the statement yesterday was sort of half assed. He still didn't mention the word "right" I don't think. He thinks they "should" be able to marry, and also that it was his "personal" opinion. So gay people should be able to marry, but what the hell do you do when the people of NC don't think so?

I think the President said he believes this is not a federal issue. Just thinking from a tax return perspective, as my wife and I file jointly, this might create an issue. Should gay federal workers get spousal benefits only if they work in gay marriage states? Or will the feds treat gay couples as married no matter where they live? Will they require states like NC recognize gay marriages for the purpose of things like Medicaid?


quote:
Did he evolve to this position


I think VP Biden helped him evolve on the issue. Politically speaking, I don't know that it helps him really. Some guy/gal that has been out of work for several years might not really care if someone wants to go out and marry a tree, let alone a person of the same sex.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6441
(8686 all sites)
Registered: 12/12/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/10/2012 at 09:23 AM
quote:
But I applaud him for finally stepping up, finally something I agree with him on.
Just fell out of my chair...

 

____________________
This one goes to eleven...

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5678
(5711 all sites)
Registered: 6/27/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/10/2012 at 09:43 AM
So, if we can, if DOMA is repealed/ruled unconstitutional, what limits can society or government rationally set upon consenting adults in any number of relationships. Would Utah be able to return to polygamy if marriage is no longer defined as one man and one woman?

There must be some threshold of consenting adults not acceptable to either left OR right. Oui?

 

____________________
Mecca Delendum Est

Support International TOURISM. Vsit MATAMOROS, Mexico

Obama thinks the American people are stupid

When leftist radicalism takes over America it.....

How does polygamous marriage threaten gay marriage?

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 13728
(13982 all sites)
Registered: 2/10/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/10/2012 at 09:47 AM
quote:
quote:
Despite his own religious background and struggles with the semantics


The semantics is what is making me crazy. Even the statement yesterday was sort of half assed. He still didn't mention the word "right" I don't think. He thinks they "should" be able to marry, and also that it was his "personal" opinion. So gay people should be able to marry, but what the hell do you do when the people of NC don't think so?

I think the President said he believes this is not a federal issue. Just thinking from a tax return perspective, as my wife and I file jointly, this might create an issue. Should gay federal workers get spousal benefits only if they work in gay marriage states? Or will the feds treat gay couples as married no matter where they live? Will they require states like NC recognize gay marriages for the purpose of things like Medicaid?


quote:
Did he evolve to this position


I think VP Biden helped him evolve on the issue. Politically speaking, I don't know that it helps him really. Some guy/gal that has been out of work for several years might not really care if someone wants to go out and marry a tree, let alone a person of the same sex.


after walking away from my computer for a moment and thinking about it, although I am working, I came up with the same sentiment. I really don't care if some guy wants to marry his neighbor's dog, just don't marry mine.

I do however think this constant use of the word "evolved" when discussing same sex marriage is kind of funny.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/10/2012 at 09:50 AM
If the institution of marraige is going to be reformulated, I'm concerned about the bi-sexuals. Shouldn't they be allowed to marry both a male and a female? What about a farmer who wants to marry his horse?
 
<<  1    2    3    4  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com