[Lobowolf]

http://writ.news.fin...f/20090617.html

[PassedOut]

I guess the suggestion in the piece is that the Obama administration should offer only a tepid defense of the laws Obama does not like. But perhaps it's easier to get laws changed if they are strictly enforced.

On a related note, my niece lives in Iowa and on May 16 married the woman (a Christian minister) who has been her partner for 17 years. My niece, who describes herself as "an absolute heathen" doesn't go to church with her, but did attend her partner's ordination (as did our family).

[jdonn]

Gay rights is the issue on which I am the most unhappy with Obama and his administration. He has backtracked on a lot, and even on things where he hasn't he seems to be moving at a snail's pace.

[mike777]

PassedOut, on Jun 18 2009, 01:54 PM, said:

I guess the suggestion in the piece is that the Obama administration should offer only a tepid defense of the laws Obama does not like. But perhaps it's easier to get laws changed if they are strictly enforced.

On a related note, my niece lives in Iowa and on May 16 married the woman (a Christian minister) who has been her partner for 17 years. My niece, who describes herself as "an absolute heathen" doesn't go to church with her, but did attend her partner's ordination (as did our family).

More surprising than a Christian minister marrying a gay is one marrying an absolute heathen.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on Jun 18 2009, 03:34 PM, said:

More surprising than a Christian minister marrying a gay is one marrying an absolute heathen.

From talking to this Christian minister, I can say for sure that she's not a right-wing fundamentalist. She does do a lot of ministering -- I mean hours every day -- to the old and the sick and to the family members of the sick. I like her a lot.

I'm not sure how they've stayed together this long with their different takes on religion, but I guess they've both adjusted some to accomodate each other.

[mike777]

PassedOut, on Jun 18 2009, 05:18 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 18 2009, 03:34 PM, said:

More surprising than a Christian minister marrying a gay is one marrying an absolute heathen.

From talking to this Christian minister, I can say for sure that she's not a right-wing fundamentalist. She does do a lot of ministering -- I mean hours every day -- to the old and the sick and to the family members of the sick. I like her a lot.

I'm not sure how they've stayed together this long with their different takes on religion, but I guess they've both adjusted some to accomodate each other.

Yes.



For an ordained Christian Minister to marry an absolute heathen should make for quite a rare marriage. Good luck!

[hrothgar]

The Diane Rehms show had a good discussion on this topic yesterday morning. You can grab the podcast at http://wamu.org/prog...06/18.php#25908

The podcast opened with John Berry (Director of the Office of Personnel Management) making the claim that Obama was commited to

Overturning the Defense of Marriage Act
Overturning Don't Ask, Don't Tell

and a bunch ofother such stuff. He also stated that Obama was constrained by the legislative process. Obama couldn't force any of this legislation through congress (and implictly stated that Obama wasn't going to waste any political capital trying to hurry this along)

Berry did state that one thing that Obama could do was to try to get the Federal Government's house in order and extend benefits that aren't explictly blocked by DOMA. Obama views this as a useful first step.

I'm somewhat torn on this issue. I would very much like to see DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell overturned. However, I'm not sure whether this is the right time to force the issue.

1. Obama has a lot of other stuff on his plate.
2. Age is the single best predictor of attitudes towards homosexuality.
3. Things are progressing rather nicely at the State level. It's unclear whether this is the right time to gin up the religious right.

All of this recommends a policy of benign neglect.

I suspect that if I were in a position where my partner was denied survivor benefits, visitation rights, and a host of other rights I might not be quite so happy taking the long view.

[luke warm]

i don't buy the 'other things on his plate' or 'political capital' arguments... he can multitask quite nicely, from what i've seen, and i don't see it as a waste of capital if one believes in the issue... having said that, i think legislation like doma is best left to the states

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Jun 19 2009, 01:03 PM, said:

I suspect that if I were in a position where my partner was denied survivor benefits, visitation rights, and a host of other rights I might not be quite so happy taking the long view.

Maybe off-topic but I don't understand these issues.

Visitation rights: You can just visit someone who is in hospital, can't you? I have never been asked, when visiting someone or receiving visits, whether we were friends or family or spouses or whatever.

Survivor benefits: You can just write whatever you want in your wills, can't you? OK there is this situation when your partner's children have the right to a part of your house when your partner dies, then if you are married you have the right to postpone paying them until you either die or re-marry. But that is probably not big issue and if it is, you can probably arrange something with your partner's children if you are on friendly terms with them.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Jun 19 2009, 07:03 AM, said:

I'm somewhat torn on this issue. I would very much like to see DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell overturned. However, I'm not sure whether this is the right time to force the issue.
All of this recommends a policy of benign neglect.

I suspect that if I were in a position where my partner was denied survivor benefits, visitation rights, and a host of other rights I might not be quite so happy taking the long view.

I can understand that there are some things that must wait for political reasons. But, to me, this is one of those issues where delaying action is perpetuating a wrong...and that's just not right. This is not deciding whether highways should be repaved this year or next. This is about putting an end to systemic discrimination. I suspect strongly that those being discriminated against don't view the neglect as benign.

I guess what it comes down to for me is that tolerating the discrimination is nearly equivalent to taking part in it.

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Jun 19 2009, 03:23 PM, said:

Maybe off-topic but I don't understand these issues.

I'll address these in reverse order

Quote

Survivor benefits: You can just write whatever you want in your wills, can't you? OK there is this situation when your partner's children have the right to a part of your house when your partner dies, then if you are married you have the right to postpone paying them until you either die or re-marry. But that is probably not big issue and if it is, you can probably arrange something with your partner's children if you are on friendly terms with them.

Wills don't mean jack ***** when it comes to benefits like social security, tax rates and the like.

Quote

Visitation rights: You can just visit someone who is in hospital, can't you? I have never been asked, when visiting someone or receiving visits, whether we were friends or family or spouses or whatever.

Simply put... No.

Spouses have a lot of rights that don't extend to friends, random strangers, what have you.

[mike777]

As more and more states allow for gay marriage at some point this become a Constitutional issue regarding states honoring contracts across state borders.


"...1 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states"

http://en.wikipedia....d_Credit_Clause

As for helene's question, many people give other people stuff when they are alive or when they die. But all of this can be taxed! In fact it often is not taxed because of massive loopholes including many for a spouse. If we just got rid of many loopholes/exemptions that spouses and charities/foundations have that may be a good first step in raising money for many needed causes such as health care and education.

As of now many gay couples must pay higher taxes that nongay couples do not.

[jdonn]

TimG, on Jun 19 2009, 07:27 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 19 2009, 07:03 AM, said:

I'm somewhat torn on this issue.  I would very much like to see DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell overturned.  However, I'm not sure whether this is the right time to force the issue. 
All of this recommends a policy of benign neglect.

I suspect that if I were in a position where my partner was denied survivor benefits, visitation rights, and a host of other rights I might not be quite so happy taking the long view.

I can understand that there are some things that must wait for political reasons. But, to me, this is one of those issues where delaying action is perpetuating a wrong...and that's just not right. This is not deciding whether highways should be repaved this year or next. This is about putting an end to systemic discrimination. I suspect strongly that those being discriminated against don't view the neglect as benign.

I guess what it comes down to for me is that tolerating the discrimination is nearly equivalent to taking part in it.

I completely agree. I give him something of a pass on, for example, gun control for the time being because of the other important issues he is busy with and the atmosphere, etc. But not on gay rights.

[Lobowolf]

I think that "constrained by the legislative process" and talk of existing laws is a cop-out.

Regardless of what he's going to do (or not to) on the matter, however, I really would have liked to think that in his Justice Department, a U.S. Attorney wouldn't make the wholly specious argument that DOMA doesn't discriminate against homosexual couples.