Obama won’t show us any legislation on gay marriage:
(still gay Democrats are giddy about his words on gay marriage)
At 0:49 below, Audrey Hepburn demonstrates how gay Americans should have responded to President Obama’s statement on gay marriage yesterday:
Like everything with Obama, all we get is “words, words, words.”
This is not just a gay conservative talking. Several voices on the left have found that there’s not much there there in the president’s sudden shift on same-sex marriage. At the Gawker, John Cook calls the statement a “cowardly cop-out”: ”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.”
At the far left magazine Mother Jones, Adam Serwer reports that his colleague . . .
. . . David Corn spoke with an administration source and asked whether the president recognized gay marriage as a right. The official replied, “He has always said that it is a state issue, and he’s not suggesting changing that. He did not support the North Carolina amendment, but he’s not saying he will bring up a piece of federal legislation on gay marriage. This is how he feels himself about the issue, and he leaves it to the states.”
Emphasis added. He’s not bringing up legislation?!? And all my left-leaning gay friends on Facebook are so giddy about the statement; Obama’s just leaving it to the states.
Shouldn’t they be insisting that he show us he loves us by putting some political capital on the line and backing legislation to make federal recognition of gay relationships a reality?
He’s like the guy who tells his beloved how much he loves her, tells her wants to get married, but refuses to buy a ring or set a date.
63 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
If Obama’s statements today are just “words, words, words,” then please explain why GP has held up Dick Cheney as something more than “words, words, words” in comparison to Obama.
Show me.
Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 2:49 am - May 10, 2012
… in the “words” sung by Audrey Hepburn.
Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 2:49 am - May 10, 2012
Fair critique, Cinesnatch. Dick Cheney was never president (alas!) and couldn’t set the legislative agenda; as Senate President, he lacked the power to introduce legislation, only able to preside over the chamber and break a tie.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 10, 2012 @ 2:50 am - May 10, 2012
Dan,
Dick Cheney was never president, but that didn’t stop GP from comparing his stance on marriage equality to Obama’s.
Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 2:52 am - May 10, 2012
The point here was to wonder why, as per a previous post, gay Democrats weren’t singing hosannas to the then-Vice President when he publicly took a different position from that of the man who tapped him as his running mate on gay marriage.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 10, 2012 @ 2:57 am - May 10, 2012
If you can provide evidence of the then-Vice President coming out vocally for marriage equality while doing a major network interview during his first term, by all means …
Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 3:06 am - May 10, 2012
Obama: “to affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”
Please cite where Cheney made this statement and when.
Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 3:11 am - May 10, 2012
2012: The President AND VP come out for marriage equality.
Please cite where this has occurred in the past.
And, then please explain why a Republican VP in 2004 saying “leave it up to the states” is greater or equal to what has occurred today.
Again, I don’t deny the “politics” behind Obama’s tactics. Repeat: I don’t DENY the motivation behind Obama’s tactics (for all those who don’t know how to read sentences the first time they’re written). Nor, do I feel these “words” equate to “actions.”
But, I am inquiring as to why GP feels justified to take our president to task for something they’ve criticized him for not doing in the past.
Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 3:19 am - May 10, 2012
Read the post, Cinesnatch. And this one. It’s that his words don’t come with action attached. Note the passage I cited above from Mother Jones.
Unlike Dick Cheney, who always played second fiddle, Obama has been in a position to lead on this. Hence my reference to LBJ & the Civil Rights Act. He didn’t do anything to make federal recognition of same-sex marriages a reality.
And Cheney didn’t make his statement in a crass attempt to appease an interest group loyal to his party.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 10, 2012 @ 3:25 am - May 10, 2012
You people will criticize ANYTHING Obama says or does like getting rid of DADT, even if it’s in your own self-interest.
Comment by David — May 10, 2012 @ 3:28 am - May 10, 2012
No, but, Cheney wouldn’t have made his statement either if he didn’t have a gay daughter.
Context.
Politics.
Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 3:31 am - May 10, 2012
Again, Dan, if GP had placed the provision that “Obama’s coming out for marriage equality is only valid if …” in the posts you’ve compared them, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
But, you didn’t.
You just compared Cheney’s coming out to Obama’s not coming out.
Obama comes out.
And, then, all of sudden, it’s not good enough.
Foresight would have helped your cause.
Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 3:34 am - May 10, 2012
Actually, David, I praised Obama for getting rid of DADT. Just check our archives.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 10, 2012 @ 3:43 am - May 10, 2012
Cine, I did more than compare Obama’s stand to Cheney’s. And if you look at my posts on Obama’s recent statement, I only mentioned Cheney twice — and only to indicate that Obama had offered the same position as Cheney.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 10, 2012 @ 3:46 am - May 10, 2012
Dan,
I am talking about GP’s posts over the last year or so that compare Cheney’s stance to Obama’s. Now, that the playing fields have been “evened,” you’ve moved the goal posts with the provision, “yeah, but his decision to come out for gay marriage wasn’t genuine.”
In the past (not the last month, but last year or so), GP has CRITICIZED Obama for not coming out FOR marriage equality when Dick Cheney HAS come out FOR state’s rights in deciding marriage equality (whatever that means, as marriage equality is ultimately a federal issue, despite what Obama or Cheney has said; namely, if I have to repeat myself yet again, marriage affords FEDERAL citizenship through straight marriage).
So, Dan, please, if I haven’t been clear, I’m not talking about the RECENT posts on Cheney/Obama/Marriage Equality, I’m talking about the posts over the last year or so, where GP has CRITICIZED Obama for being BEHIND Cheney as far as marriage equality is concerned.
Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 3:55 am - May 10, 2012
Yes, but gay activists have never held Cheney in high regard. And some are all but drooling over Obama.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 10, 2012 @ 3:58 am - May 10, 2012
Dan,
Why are you holding me accountable for gay activists? Why must I answer for them? They don’t speak for me. Just because I believe in marriage equality and don’t identify as conservative or Republican, I must be held responsible for Gay, Inc? I don’t identify as Democrat, either. Please explain the logic, because that’s where you are steering this conversation.
Again, my question is directed at GP. Please don’t make me repeat myself. It is late and my fingers are tired. I’ll refer you back to Post #15.
Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 4:07 am - May 10, 2012
Cine, I’m not holding you to account for them; I’m just explaining my position — and my amusement at their enthusiasm for his statement.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 10, 2012 @ 4:09 am - May 10, 2012
Okay, Dan, I don’t watch TV or read political blogs other than this one, so I remain at a disadvantage as far as being aware of the “enthusiasm.”
Most of my friends didn’t really care. In fact, in WeHo today, my friend and I made fun of all the helicopters and news vans on San Vicente getting “the scoop” on how “the gays” felt about the “announcement.”
That being said, GP is on record on taking Obama to task for lagging behind Cheney on the marriage equality issue. A simple post commending the president for making this historic step forward before you delved into your political stance would have been appropriate.
I’ll quote GP 2012.5/8 3:01PM:
“I’m afraid that Obama/Biden are going to find out that having it both ways on the gay marriage issue may cost them the election in November. Think 2004 in reverse. I will explain my theory later if no one gets it.”
I don’t get it, because, evidently, Obama/Biden are not trying to have it both ways.
Additionally, instead of acknowledging Obama’s choice to come out for gay marriage (regardless of his intentions), you went right for “but, he would have ACTED his first year, but he didn’t.”
Yet, GP has taken him to task in the last year for not doing more than Cheney, who has only provided WORDS at this point. If memory serves me, Cheney provided no action. Yet, GP has heralded him as being somehow ahead of the issue. If Cheney actually wasn’t ahead of the issue on Obama (words being meaningless), then how do you justify comparing them ever. Why would GP ever make that comparison to begin with? (Again, these are from posts within the last year, not the last couple days.)
There is an inconsistency here on the behalf of GP.
Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 4:24 am - May 10, 2012
Cinesnatch, you are awfully hard on our host.
I have mainly been amused at Obama’s evolving stance. Obvious hookum. It is interesting that last week I read that the deep pockets of the gay community were not opening this year for Obama’s reelection and this week the Obama team decides that he has evolved enough to state he ‘personally’ believes that gay marriage should be allowed; however, there is ‘no action’ that HE can actually take because the matter is ‘up to the states’.
What does this change? I do not see where the ball has been moved
especially as something like 31 states have already banned it. I personally have not evolved enough for SSM but I do want some sort of contractual protections for SS couples who wish rights of survivorship and other protections for couple’s rights, just not comfortable with calling it marriage because of the assault on the Catholic church and its charities. In New England, Catholic charities has been forced out of adoption services because SS couples have sued to force the church to allow SS adoptions against the teaching and religious beliefs of the church. Same thing happened with Catholic Charity Hospitals, they had the choice of closing or violating their faith by providing abortions and contraceptives. Ditto with Obamacare and the Catholic church. It is my belief that if SS unions are called marriage that churches of many faiths will be forced through our court system to preform these ceremonies regardless of their church beliefs. I am not saying that all SS couples would do this but judging by the actions of the militant few,I know that this will happen if there is not a distinction made between traditional and SS unions.
Comment by TexasMom2012 — May 10, 2012 @ 6:18 am - May 10, 2012
It is my belief that if SS unions are called marriage that churches of many faiths will be forced through our court system to preform these ceremonies regardless of their church beliefs.
TexasMom, I don’t have a crystal ball, so I cannot necessarily allay your fears. But the Catholic Church always had the right to choose who they will marry. For example, they have refused to marry persons who have been divorced without getting any previous marriage(s) annulled.
Comment by Pat — May 10, 2012 @ 6:45 am - May 10, 2012
Not much “there, there”? That’s all it is. “There, there now. I’m really with you so vote for me in spite of my not doing anything.”
Perhaps you should be waiting like Putin for after the election when he “has more room”.
Comment by Bill G — May 10, 2012 @ 6:54 am - May 10, 2012
Oh, Blatt you are such a film queen
Everything comes with an old clip. Do “The King And I” next. That shouldn’t be hard, as Deborah was sassy in that film, at all times.
Comment by Evan Hurst — May 10, 2012 @ 7:07 am - May 10, 2012
Oh, and Texas Mom, why would you think that any self-respecting gay couple would want to marry at a hick Baptist church that didn’t respect their union? Would you have wanted to marry at a place that didn’t respect yours? Stop reading whatever crap you read and get to know a real gay couple, please.
Comment by Evan Hurst — May 10, 2012 @ 7:09 am - May 10, 2012
Also, one more thing, Dan:
Cheney’s affirmation of marriage equality would probably have traveled further if Cheney wasn’t such a disgusting ghoul on so many other fronts. I mean, truly, Cheney’s affirmation of marriage equality MAY be his only redeemable trait, and despite gay conservatives’ protests to the contrary, politically aware gay liberals DO care about other issues beyond gay rights. Indeed, THIS gay liberal doesn’t even put gay rights at the top of his concerns! They’re high up, but for me, other things ultimately take precedence. Like the rule of law and the fact that this nation worked hard to destroy the concept of civil liberties for the sake of a threat that is only pressing in the nightmarish fever dreams of people like, um, your co-blogger probably. He gets scared easily.
So, really, what else should we say about Cheney? All liberal gay blogs commended him for his stance and for standing up for his daughter, and that doesn’t change the fact that he’s done far more harm to this country and this world than his stance on equality could ever fix.
Dick Cheney: Good for gays, as long as they don’t happen to be humans who live on this planet!
Comment by Evan Hurst — May 10, 2012 @ 7:19 am - May 10, 2012
Comment by The Livewire — May 10, 2012 @ 7:53 am - May 10, 2012
@Pat,
I think TexasMom has reason for concern, both based on the government’s actions against a religious group (Catholic adoption centres, the current attacks on religious freedom for health care) and individuals (the case of the wedding photographer in New Mexico).
Also while people like Evan and Levi no more represent all liberals any more than you do, it’s clear there is a rather vile bunch on the left who will use any method to attack religion (well religion that doesn’t try to kill them that is).
Comment by The Livewire — May 10, 2012 @ 8:05 am - May 10, 2012
So, you think Obama should present a bill to congress for the GOP to approve.
Are you aware that the GOP would never pass anything remotely pro-gay?
I mean, are you aware that the GOP is against you as a gay person?
I think you are confused or really racist to hate Obama for going in from of the American public and support us, gays. He might just have ruined his chances of winning. If you vote for the right wing homophobics you really needs to examine your logic. I don’t get it. TO REFUSE TO GIVE ANY TYPE OF CREDIT TO OBAMA IS JUST CRAZY
Comment by George insane — May 10, 2012 @ 8:42 am - May 10, 2012
Gay Marriage Amendment Fails in Senate
Network News
X
PROFILE
View More Activity
TOOLBOX
Resize Print
E-mail Reprints
By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 8, 2006
A constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, backed by President Bush and conservative groups, was soundly defeated in the Senate yesterday after proponents failed to persuade a bare majority of all senators to support the measure.
Comment by rusty — May 10, 2012 @ 9:01 am - May 10, 2012
I agree with TexasMom’s concern about churches being forced to act against their religious beliefs. As a Catholic, we’ve already seen the forced closing of Catholic charitable outreaches. The Obamacare law has more coming down the pike. Since I live in New Mexico, I’m very aware of the Christian wedding photographer being fined. I keep waiting for the hairdresser who didn’t want to cut the governor’s hair to also be fined because he didn’t like the governor’s politics. As a conservative, I believe both businesses have the right to choose their customers, unfortunately the New Mexican law’s precedent doesn’t agree with my position.
TexasMom is right to be concerned.
Comment by Louise B — May 10, 2012 @ 9:45 am - May 10, 2012
@ Louise
Oh of course the hair dresser won’t be fined. His beliefs are ‘correct’ after all.
Libs believe that some animals are more equal than others.
Comment by The Livewire — May 10, 2012 @ 9:50 am - May 10, 2012
Thanks for that Rusty.
Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 10:05 am - May 10, 2012
Whew!
Gay Marriage goes down in flames with the passage of Amendment One in North Carolina.
North Carolina is a swing state Obama needs to carry for his reelection.
North Carolina is the site of the Obama nomination at the Democrat National Convention.
Cries go out for the Democrats to move the convention.
On the same day, Obama has an epiphany and pink smoke comes out of the White House. (H.T. to Rush on the pink smoke.)
Obama “personally” favors gay marriage now, but not officially. It is to be left up to the states. <a href=http://gawker.com/5909002/barack-obamas-bullshit-gay-marriage-announcement#13366064585933
Comment by heliotrope — May 10, 2012 @ 10:15 am - May 10, 2012
Livewire-That is exactly my point. The hairdresser’s views are “correct.” I’ve always believed the law should be blind. (Naive and idealist, I know.) The problem with basing law’s precedent on “correct” views, is eventually the “correctness” changes and the law no longer protects you. It should be applied equally, no matter who you are or what you believe. That’s why fewer laws are fairer than more.
Comment by Louise B — May 10, 2012 @ 10:16 am - May 10, 2012
If you read Obama’s words carefully, he’s still voting present. With gay marriage, he believes it’s a states rights issue, yet for illegal aliens he doesn’t. Obama is all about shallow politics. He cannot sustain these distractions for 6 months.
Comment by Sebastian Shaw — May 10, 2012 @ 10:23 am - May 10, 2012
Wait… He wasn’t????? Oh Snap!!!! There goes that narrative!!!
Comment by sonicfrog — May 10, 2012 @ 10:58 am - May 10, 2012
Cinesnatch-
Your boorish behavior has become stale. If you don’t have any productive points to bring to the table, except constant attacks on Dan or I, then I’d like to ask you to leave.
Comment by GayPatriot — May 10, 2012 @ 11:13 am - May 10, 2012
Not true. The MOMENT Presidunce Corky McShortbus gets one right, I’ll be happy to proclaim it from the highest rooftop. And please spare me the “in your own self-interest” bullshit. I HATE that throw away leftist line.
Comment by Bastiat Fan — May 10, 2012 @ 11:34 am - May 10, 2012
[...] taught to swallow Democrat Party propaganda without question. Therefore I’m grateful to Gay Patriot for invoking a tune from My Fair Lady in discussing Obama’s recent “evolut…:He’s like the guy who tells his beloved how much he loves her, tells her wants to get married, [...]
Pingback by As a Notorious Homophobe, Of Course, I Don’t Do Broadway Show Tune Lyrics : The Other McCain — May 10, 2012 @ 11:36 am - May 10, 2012
I’m amused that he supports marriage for Federalist reasons, because he’s such a big friend to the states don’tcha know. Just ask the operators of California’s pot dispensaries that were raided.
Comment by Robert Hewes — May 10, 2012 @ 11:44 am - May 10, 2012
@Robert That’s also why he’s come out against Roe v Wade, and is going to dismantel health care.
Comment by The Livewire — May 10, 2012 @ 12:20 pm - May 10, 2012
Probably because, George, we know what Barack Obama really thinks.
Barack Obama pays people like Evan Hurst to write this sort of thing about gay conservatives and calls for them to kill themselves.
Barack Obama pays Dan Savage to go on national TV and call for gays to murder Republicans.
Barack Obama is a lying, amoral hypocrite. He openly supports telling gays to kill themselves for having the “wrong” political affiliation and supports gays murdering Republicans.
Why on earth would I ever support such a sick, pathetic individual? Murdering people over their political affiliation? Does this not bother you that Obama is so delusional and sick that he supports murdering his political opponents?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 10, 2012 @ 12:45 pm - May 10, 2012
If Obama loses in November–which is entirely possible–many gays will be convinced it is because of Obama’s comments on gay marriage.
Comment by niall — May 10, 2012 @ 1:33 pm - May 10, 2012
There’s a theory: maybe Obama is setting up his excuse?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 10, 2012 @ 1:40 pm - May 10, 2012
Already seeing comments like “this may cost him the election but he did the right thing” on Facebook.
Comment by niall — May 10, 2012 @ 1:42 pm - May 10, 2012
“Cinesnatch-
Your boorish behavior has become stale. If you don’t have any productive points to bring to the table, except constant attacks on Dan or I, then I’d like to ask you to leave.”
Based upon my observations on this website, I take Bruce’s comment to mean that “constant attacks” are fine, dandy, and welcome, as long as they are not against Bruce or Dan.
Comment by Richard R — May 10, 2012 @ 2:04 pm - May 10, 2012
I’ll try to answer the question posed in Post #1. IIRC Cheney’s comments came about after he was asked about gay marriage during a debate with Edwards. It is more notable when an “evil” conservative elected official (with lots more to lose) speaks positively of gays than when a liberal Democrat president (with little to lose) does the same.
Comment by niall — May 10, 2012 @ 2:14 pm - May 10, 2012
Richard, dear, your attempts to complain about being “attacked” are completely undercut by what you and yours are doing here.
People have realized that you and your fellow gays and lesbians like Evan Hurst are nothing more than bigots who scream about “civility” even as you try to destroy peoples’ reputations and call for Republicans and gay conservatives to be murdered.
Since you choose to act like Fred Phelps, you are being treated like Fred Phelps. Since you have chosen to try to destroy Dan’s reputation, yours is being hammered.
And would you acknowledge that, since you and yours have called for Republicans and gay conservatives to be murdered and to kill themselves, that any objection you have to the same being done for you is nothing more than rank hypocrisy on your part?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 10, 2012 @ 2:32 pm - May 10, 2012
I’m still waiting for Richard to answer the question posed to him a couple days ago.
Comment by The Livewire — May 10, 2012 @ 3:04 pm - May 10, 2012
I would like to amend TLW’s favorite catchphrase:
“hush, Levi, an adult from the Peanuts cartoon is talking.”
Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 3:07 pm - May 10, 2012
Livewire and Lousie B., I understand your concern. Here is the difference, IMO. The Catholic Charities you are referring to are doing a service for the state. As such, they have to follow the law. Unless I’m mistaken, they always have complied. Before gay couples were allowed to adopt, there was no problem. Catholic principles were in line with the state law. Today it’s different.
My employer is a branch of the Catholic Church. They have to follow employment laws from the state, whether they like it or not. As far as I know, they do not have a problem with the anti-discrimination laws against same sex persons, and do have to provide the same benefits to a person in a civil union as they would to a married person.
Ironically, it is my understanding that most Catholic colleges and universities are more concerned with Vatican controls (such as Ex Corde Ecclesiae) than they are with government.
Anyway, I don’t see, in the near future, at least, that the Catholic Church will be forced to conduct same sex marriage. Even if a majority so support SSM, a overwhelming majority does not want any church to be forced to marriage same sex couples, just as they wouldn’t want the Church to be imposed to marry divorced persons.
I think there is still precedence here, because the Catholic Church is still not required by law to ordain female priests or married priests. Any such changes will occur internally, and not happen through government intrusion. IMO, at least.
Comment by Pat — May 10, 2012 @ 4:48 pm - May 10, 2012
I don’t understand how gay leftists can expect gay conservatives to treat them civilly when gay leftists are anything but civil towards gay conservatives. Personally, I’ll treat leftists civilly when they treat me civilly (which some do, I try to treat them civilly in return). It is laughable for people like Richard R to be bringing that up here. Here is a suggestion, Richard R: lead by example.
Comment by Rattlesnake — May 10, 2012 @ 5:41 pm - May 10, 2012
@Pat,
I’ve said before that just because something is constitutional, doesn’t mean it’s right. Primarily in Lawrence v. Texas, but the Catholic institutions are the same. It may well be constitutional to force Catholic (and other institutions) to violate their beliefs, but I don’t feel it is.
A Catholic school or university should not be forced by the government to provide some level of coverage, any more than Wendy’s should be forced to.
Likewise, when the state holds a monopoly on power. (in this case, adoption) by changing previously existing rules with the result of hurting those they claim to protect (like the children for Catholic charities) it they should sorely consider what they’re sacrificing on the alter of being ‘tolerant’.
Comment by The_Livewire — May 10, 2012 @ 5:46 pm - May 10, 2012
Rattlesnake >
I agree with you: civility begets civility. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it doesn’t seem to be very common on GP for conservative visitors to demand civility (outside of the occasional post from Dan/Bruce). It’s a nice change.
Further, it’s ironic that Richard’s question to GP went unanswered in the context of your post.
Just an observation.
And, again, this comment is by no means an attack on anyone. Just so we’re clear.
Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 6:01 pm - May 10, 2012
He didn’t ask a question.
I seem to recall some instances in which comments sympathetic to Bruce and Dan were erased, but that is beside the point. If Bruce or Dan want to delete comments, ban someone, or ask someone to leave; it’s their blog, so they have every right to do so without justification. If it were me, I wouldn’t do so, but it’s not my blog. And, to be honest, I don’t have an answer for Richard R’s non-question; that is something Bruce would have to answer (since its his blog, and he is the one who is asking you to leave. I don’t know the rationale behind his comment aside from what is explicitly stated, if there is any).
Comment by Rattlesnake — May 10, 2012 @ 7:04 pm - May 10, 2012
Pat- To expand a bit on what Livewire wrote about:
Likewise, when the state holds a monopoly on power. (in this case, adoption) by changing previously existing rules with the result of hurting those they claim to protect (like the children for Catholic charities) it they should sorely consider what they’re sacrificing on the alter of being ‘tolerant’.
This is exactly my point about laws being enforced based on “correctness” . The hair dresser doesn’t have to pay a fine like the wedding photographer did because the law isn’t equally enforced. And now the law is being changed for “correctness” reasons and changing the rules that existed before. Now Catholic Charities is illegal in what they were doing, placing children in adoption. If laws can change on the whim of correctness, don’t be surprised if they are used against what you believe is correct.
Comment by Louise B — May 10, 2012 @ 7:20 pm - May 10, 2012
It wasn’t posed as a question, but it was certainly offered up for debate. I’m not surprised it went unaddressed by GP.
It being their blog isn’t lost on me.
Neither is hypocrisy that goes unaddressed.
If pointing it out is the definition of an attack, that’s Bruce’s call.
If he wants to ban me, that is also his call.
His standards for conduct are cryptic at best.
That has been my experience.
Comment by Cinesnatch — May 10, 2012 @ 7:23 pm - May 10, 2012
Livewire and Louise, a couple of points. I can’t speak for all Catholic colleges, but I think most welcome the type of freedom that other private and public colleges share, and with or without government laws don’t want to be any more discriminatory. Of course, the fact that private colleges, religious or otherwise, in NJ get some state money, does mean they have to be compliant.
With respect to Catholic charities, my point was that they used to be in compliance with laws, because gay couples were not allowed to adopt. So no conflict. I don’t know. Maybe these charities were allowed to discriminate against married couples where one or both were divorced. Or they chose to forgo their principles there. Again, I don’t know.
Despite any of the above, I still don’t see the state even attempting to decide who the church could marry. In fact, in many of the states that have same sex marriage, the laws specifically reaffirmed the church’s right to determine who they can marry, even though (my understanding, at least) that law experts felt these provisions were redundant.
And Louise, I do understand that this government intrusion can turn against me. That’s one reason why I am strongly against church’s being forced to marry any couple that they don’t want to.
Comment by Pat — May 10, 2012 @ 8:32 pm - May 10, 2012
[...] It would be too gay to say, for example, that you’ve got to be carefully taught to swallow Democrat Party propaganda without question. Therefore I’m grateful to Gay Patriot for invoking a tune from My Fair Lady in discussing Obama’s recent “evolution”: [...]
Pingback by O’Sucka To Gays: Well…If I Have to…I Guess…I…Will…Support…You…Openly…Contemptuously. | ZION'S TRUMPET — May 11, 2012 @ 7:53 am - May 11, 2012
@Pat,
You and I agree that government power is ‘sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander’ but I think we’ve a slight disconnect.
Even if a law can/does protect churches, it has two problems. 1) Such laws will be attacked on establishment clauses and b) It doesn’t protect the smallest minority, the individual. (See the NM wedding photographer for an example, as well as E-harmony. Also my Wendy’s example for health care)
As to the adoption issue, when you get social workers fighting adoption in the name of racial purity. When you get them disrupting lives you already have a state that chooses power over the wellbeing of their charges.
Catholic charities were providing a service that helped people. Were they the only adoption centre in town? As far as I know, no. If Bill and Ted wanted to have an excellent adoption, they could go to other centres. If Bill and Ted wanted to have am excellent adoption agency then let them get acredited and start it up. In the later case, everyone wins. What we have now, in forcing Catholics to violate their conscience in the name of ‘tolerance’ hurts everyone, the children needing homes most of all.
(I’d made a similar argument about the Boy Scout’s morally straight clause. If you don’t like it form your own organization. Stop trying to destroy everyone else’s.)
In table top RPGs, it’s an old joke that people are having “badwrongfun” meaning that they’re enjoying the game but they’re not doing it ‘right’. There’s no RPG police who will kick down your doors and take away your dice. Just angry nerds telling you you’re doing it wrong. In a situation where you have to have government intervention (like adoption) the interference should be minimal, the competition should be maximized. For adoption the government’s role should be “Are they being placed in stable homes? Are they in danger of being abused? No? Good job.”
That standard should apply to Catholic adoption services and Bill and Ted’s Excellent adoption agency.
Comment by The Livewire — May 11, 2012 @ 8:20 am - May 11, 2012
Livewire, I get your point about the adoption agencies. Perhaps it would be best to let Catholic charities be able to pick and choose as they see fit. But this is a service that the Church is (was?) running as a service for the state. I don’t know how that translates into what laws such agencies must follow, and/or how religious (or any other) exemptions apply. So, agencies should get to set their own rules with minimal government interference (whatever that limit is, and who gets to decide?). My point is, that before same sex marriage, Catholic charities had to follow MA state laws regarding the running of their agency. And apparently that was okay, until the law said that adoption agencies could not discriminate against same sex married couples. Right or wrong, now it’s up to the people of MA to decide whether a religious exemption should be allowed.
Another point is that people are using fear that same sex marriage will be imposed on churches if it is passed. Fair enough. But that is true for any law that goes against a church doctrine. Despite all that, the Catholic Church has not been forced to marry divorced persons, they have not been forced to ordain women as priest, or to ordain married men as priest, or to ordain men that they believe may be gay, etc. I just don’t see this happening with same sex marriage. Any impositions that the Church has faced involved them running agencies or businesses (such as the insurance contraception flap), but not the church business itself.
Comment by Pat — May 11, 2012 @ 10:55 am - May 11, 2012
@Pat,
Keep in mind we had a case go all the way to the supremes about a church being able to appoint their own clergy. Sure they won (this time)…
As to ‘minimum requirements’ I think those minimums should be about the job. So I don’t see an issue with a state (again, not federal, as I don’t see adoption or health mandates being in the Constitution) saying ‘you can’t run the Municipal Girls Orphanage and treat the kids like this ‘Miss Hannigan‘ I have a problem with them saying “Your good service is being discarded because your beliefs don’t synch with mine.”
Now again, this goes into ‘just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should.’ Yes, MA can shoot the children up for adoption in the foot by cutting off a successful means of placement. But who is that helping? It doesn’t help Bill and Ted adopt, and it makes it harder for Annie to be adopted. If people have an issue with an organization they shouldn’t squeltch it, they should bury it through competition.
Comment by The Livewire — May 11, 2012 @ 11:59 am - May 11, 2012
Livewire, I had to google to see which case you were talking about. I came across this case in January, in which a women lost her job at a Lutheran school. If I read the particulars correctly, this was a woman who taught mostly secular courses, but did teach one religious course. Because she taught this one course, she was considered a minister. And since churches can choose their own clergy, the Lutheran Church argued they were within their rights to fire her.
This was a quick read on this case, and I could very well have the important details wrong. But once again, it appears that the only reason why it even made it to the Supreme Court was that this was mostly about a discrimination case about a school employee. And even though the argument that she was a clergy person in this role is sketchy at best, the Supreme Court ruled in the church’s favor. So I don’t see any danger in the foreseeable future that state or federal governments will be able to impose who the church can appoint as actual clergy.
Comment by Pat — May 11, 2012 @ 12:41 pm - May 11, 2012