Obama & Gay Marriage

[August1991]

The California Supreme Court, striking down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman, ruled on Thursday that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The 4-to-3 decision, drawing on a ruling 60 years ago that struck down a state ban on interracial marriage, would make California the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriages.

The decision, which becomes effective in 30 days unless the court grants a stay, was greeted with celebrations at San Francisco City Hall, where thousands of same-sex marriages were thrown out by the courts four years ago.

NYT

This decision is likely to put this issue into the campaign. So, what's Obama's position? Decidedly American liberal.

Barack Obama believes we need to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. His campaign literature says, "The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve."

...

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

Link

I'm surprised to discover that I share Obama's opinion. I too would have preferred if Canada's Supreme Court had left same-sex marriage a provincial question leaving each province to decide whether to allow it or not.

[bush_cheney2004]

Obama has already received his wish in many states....with laws passed to ban same gender marriage and the recognition of any such marriages in other states or nations. I recall that this issue helped President Bush get re-elected in 2004 (codeword = "family values").

[jdobbin]

This decision is likely to put this issue into the campaign. So, what's Obama's position? Decidedly American liberal.

Ellen DeGeneres just announced that with the change in the law, she is getting married to her girlfriend Portia de Rossi.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080516/...ellen_degeneres

[Leafless]

I'm surprised to discover that I share Obama's opinion. I too would have preferred if Canada's Supreme Court had left same-sex marriage a provincial question leaving each province to decide whether to allow it or not.

Its not over yet.

Conservative groups have pledged to bring the decision before the state's voters on the November ballot. Leaders of the movement to protect traditional marriage said that they would petition the court to delay implementation of same-sex marriage until the voters had an opportunity to weigh in on the court decision. In 1978, the California voters overwhelmingly approved a measure that explicitly defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court decision of May 15 overturned the voters' choice on that issue.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58472

Try this in democratic Canada.

[WIP]

Obama has already received his wish in many states....with laws passed to ban same gender marriage and the recognition of any such marriages in other states or nations. I recall that this issue helped President Bush get re-elected in 2004 (codeword = "family values").

Yeah! And how well did it work when he trotted "defense of marriage" out for the 2006 mid-term elections? The Republican Party has been travelling down the road of winning by stoking the fires of white, middleclass xenophobia for too long! Considering the three straight special congressional elections that they've all lost in Republican strongholds, I'm betting that the game of winning support by appealing to the fears and hatreds of the Republican base aren't going to work now that mainstream Republican voters are losing their jobs and having their homes foreclosed on!

I challenge you to name one positive message in Republican politics these days! They are trying to win by feeding off of fear of terrorism, secular humanism, homosexuals, blacks, latinos............there hasn't been a positive, hopeful message in the Republican brand since Ronald Reagan!

[WIP]

Its not over yet.

QUOTE

Conservative groups have pledged to bring the decision before the state's voters on the November ballot. Leaders of the movement to protect traditional marriage said that they would petition the court to delay implementation of same-sex marriage until the voters had an opportunity to weigh in on the court decision. In 1978, the California voters overwhelmingly approved a measure that explicitly defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court decision of May 15 overturned the voters' choice on that issue.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=58472

Try this in democratic Canada.

It's sickening how far conservatives have travelled down the road to fascism! Those courts were put in place as a safeguard to protect the rights of unpopular minorities from mob rule.....which is what the social conservatives are asking for. They want the right to use their majority to take away the rights of people who don't live the way they want them to!

When I read the blather coming from these church groups who are so wound up to defend marriage, I have to ask why aren't they doing a better job fixing the broken marriages within their own communities? Maybe they need to ease off the preaching a little since conservative Christians have higher divorce rates than atheists and agnostics! http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm Maybe all that obsessing over sin and guilt has a damaging effect on married life!

Let them fix their own house first and stop interfering with those homosexuals who feel that marriage arrangements with their partners would provide more stability and security in their lives.

[August1991]

When I read the blather coming from these church groups who are so wound up to defend marriage, I have to ask why aren't they doing a better job fixing the broken marriages within their own communities?

The State has no business in such private, personal matters - whether in favour or against.

In such a large place as North America, with some 350 million people, if one priest, preacher or jurisdction decides to approve a marriage contract, then so be it. Ours has always been a large continent with lots of space for freedom.

As to Obama and gay marriage, if I agree with him on this issue, it's unlikely many Americans will vote for him. Fortunately, I have no desire to be president.

[WIP]

The State has no business in such private, personal matters - whether in favour or against.

As long as the state is in the business of licensing and regulating who can and who cannot get married, then they have an obligation to ensure fairness.

In such a large place as North America, with some 350 million people, if one priest, preacher or jurisdction decides to approve a marriage contract, then so be it. Ours has always been a large continent with lots of space for freedom.

As to Obama and gay marriage, if I agree with him on this issue, it's unlikely many Americans will vote for him. Fortunately, I have no desire to be president.

From your link it's apparent that Barack Obama is trying to play to the church crowd by positioning himself as against gay marriage, but allowing civil union. The California Supreme Court had a good point about the weakness of this position by comparing it to the "separate but equal" segregationist policies that George Wallace and others tried to pass off as racial equality down South. And more than anyone else, a civil rights advocate should be able to see that he is advocating an unequal system!

Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions:

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

So, here comes the religious left! On many issues, they will not be any more reluctant about imposing their values on others than the religious right is!

And I'm still a little bewildered by the argument that this is an issue for state and local governments, but not the federal government! Once certain states and provinces legalize gay marriage, what happens when they move to a state or province that doesn't recognize gay marriage?

[CANADIEN]

I'm surprised to discover that I share Obama's opinion. I too would have preferred if Canada's Supreme Court had left same-sex marriage a provincial question leaving each province to decide whether to allow it or not.

There is a difference between the two countries. The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the States and the People. In Canada, article 91 of the Constitutional Act of 1867 lists marriage and divorce as areas of federal jurisdiction, yet article 92 lists the solemnization of marriage as a provincial are of responsibility (go figure )

Edited May 19, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

The State has no business in such private, personal matters - whether in favour or against.

In such a large place as North America, with some 350 million people, if one priest, preacher or jurisdction decides to approve a marriage contract, then so be it. Ours has always been a large continent with lots of space for freedom.

As to Obama and gay marriage, if I agree with him on this issue, it's unlikely many Americans will vote for him. Fortunately, I have no desire to be president.

If the State gives a legal status to marriage (or civil union, or common-law couples for that matter), grants it any benefit fiscal or otherwise, and puts into law the mutual legal responsibilities of those who enter it, then it HAS to define what a marriage is from a legal point o view.

If the State has to provide no legal definition of marriage, then there should be no recognition or reference to marriages in law, no fiscal or other advantages given to it in law, and no imposition of any mutual legal responsibilities in law. What the legal definition is, how fair or unfair and how right or wrong it is, that's another matter.

[maldon_road]

If the State gives a legal status to marriage (or civil union, or common-law couples for that matter), grants it any benefit fiscal or otherwise, and puts into law the mutual legal responsibilities of those who enter it, then it HAS to define what a marriage is from a legal point o view.

And that of course is what gays have been fighting for for the past 30 years. To give legal status to their unions - which they have now obtained thanks to a compliant judiciary.

I am one of those who believes that if it had not been for about seven favorable court decisions there is no way Bill C-68 would ever have been passed.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah! And how well did it work when he trotted "defense of marriage" out for the 2006 mid-term elections? The Republican Party has been travelling down the road of winning by stoking the fires of white, middleclass xenophobia for too long!

Apart from it working as a political strategy, you are partially mistaken about the constituency demographics. DOMA goes way back to the Clinton administration (which Slick Willy supported), and enjoyed broad support in several non "white" groups, notably African American Baptist congregations.

Considering the three straight special congressional elections that they've all lost in Republican strongholds, I'm betting that the game of winning support by appealing to the fears and hatreds of the Republican base aren't going to work now that mainstream Republican voters are losing their jobs and having their homes foreclosed on!

Would have to check your math and maybe ask former senator Tom Daschle about winning.

I challenge you to name one positive message in Republican politics these days! They are trying to win by feeding off of fear of terrorism, secular humanism, homosexuals, blacks, latinos............there hasn't been a positive, hopeful message in the Republican brand since Ronald Reagan!

Even if that was true (it isn't), how do you explain Republican successes since Ronald Reagan left office almost 20 years ago? The Democrats even co-opted the Republican message, giving us sweeping welfare reform, an example of a positive message since Reagan (and well received by the voting public). There are others, including public education metrics, anti-money laundering enforcement, Medicare Part D, etc., etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

...If the State has to provide no legal definition of marriage, then there should be no recognition or reference to marriages in law, no fiscal or other advantages given to it in law, and no imposition of any mutual legal responsibilities in law. What the legal definition is, how fair or unfair and how right or wrong it is, that's another matter.

But you have highlighted an important technical issue, civil rights concerns notwithstanding. In order for the state to invoke jurisdiction on such matters it must clearly define what a "marriage" is.

IMHO, government should not be in the business of making such distinctions beyond the foundation of contract law. The different flavors of glandular love are irrelevant.

As for Obama, he has clearly come down on the side that loses the least amount of votes. So much for "Yes We Can".

[Oleg Bach]

Apart from it working as a political strategy, you are partially mistaken about the constituency demographics. DOMA goes way back to the Clinton administration (which Slick Willy supported), and enjoyed broad support in several non "white" groups, notably African American Baptist congregations.

Would have to check your math and maybe ask former senator Tom Daschle about winning.

Even if that was true (it isn't), how do you explain Republican successes since Ronald Reagan left office almost 20 years ago? The Democrats even co-opted the Republican message, giving us sweeping welfare reform, an example of a positive message since Reagan (and well received by the voting public). There are others, including public education metrics, anti-money laundering enforcement, Medicare Part D, etc., etc.

To hell with marriage gay or otherwise. I still see my partner of 25 years and sit and eat with her and make love to her. Our four kids are grown and happy..and all the people that critized and persecuted us over time..for not being fromally married are all now ALL divorced...as far as gay marriage..wait untill the divorce industry get their hands on this bunch with all of their "disposable" income. If there was any credibilty to state and church sanctioned marriage-- it's gone now when non-breeding couples have the same status as breeding pairs..those that can not breed naturally are inferiour to those that can..that's a fact of nature. Obama and the rest of them play the gay marriage cause because most foolish people actually think they are being "nice people" when they grant empty rights to others. Its a cheap shot to become involved in the gay marriage debate for politcal purposes..no one privately really respects gay marriage..why would they - it's not real.

[August1991]

There is a difference between the two countries. The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the States and the People. In Canada, article 91 of the Constitutional Act of 1867 lists marriage and divorce as areas of federal jurisdiction, yet article 92 lists the solemnization of marriage as a provincial are of responsibility (go figure )

The BNA Act did that because in 1867 the issue was marriages between Protestants and Catholics. IOW, our constitution left the solemnization of such marriages to the provinces to handle. We should have done the same with same sex marriages.

To hell with marriage gay or otherwise. I still see my partner of 25 years and sit and eat with her and make love to her. Our four kids are grown and happy..and all the people that critized and persecuted us over time..for not being fromally married are all now ALL divorced...

Oleg, it's largely irrelevant from a legal standpoint whether you get married or not now. Once you have children, you more or less have a legal obligation for about 20 years. Edited May 19, 2008 by August1991

[CANADIEN]

The BNA Act did that because in 1867 the issue was marriages between Protestants and Catholics. IOW, our constitution left the solemnization of such marriages to the provinces to handle. We should have done the same with same sex marriages.

The issue in 1867 was not only if a protestant could legally marry a Catholic, but also if divorced persons could re-marry. They were concerns (legitimate in those days) that Quebec would be able to prohibit marriages performed in a Protestant church between a Protestant and a Catholic, or involving pne or two divorced persons if it was permitted by that Church.

So, the definition of what a marriage is, that is who can marry who, was included in the list of areas of federal jurisdiction. Same with divorce, for the same reasons.

The issue of solemnization of marriage is different, it is about who can perform the ceremony, and how it is to be recorded. True, it gave provinces the power to authorize - or not - civil marriage, and people performing civil marriages and registering marriages were able to not recognize a same-sex marriage, but the refusal was based on the definition included in federal legislation. Provincial authorities cannot use their solemnization powers to refuse to recognize a marriage otherwise permitted in law. as the Alberta government found when it considered legislation to prevent same-sex civil marriage in the Province.

Same-sex marriage is clearly a marriage definition, not a marriage solemnization matter, and therefore in Canada it is clearly a federal matter, not a provincial one.

I'm surprised to discover that I share Obama's opinion. I too would have preferred if Canada's Supreme Court had left same-sex marriage a provincial question leaving each province to decide whether to allow it or not.

It was not a provincial issue to start with.

Edited May 19, 2008 by CANADIEN

[maldon_road]

I'm surprised to discover that I share Obama's opinion. I too would have preferred if Canada's Supreme Court had left same-sex marriage a provincial question leaving each province to decide whether to allow it or not.

The matter is clearly federal; however, this is an issue of social policy and as such is in the domain of Parliament. The courts should not have ruled on it but have left it to the elected representatives to determine.

[CANADIEN]

The matter is clearly federal; however, this is an issue of social policy and as such is in the domain of Parliament. The courts should not have ruled on it but have left it to the elected representatives to determine.

This is an issue of law. Through the Constitutional Act of 1982, the elected representative have stated clearly that certain rights were protected. In particular, they clearly protected equality before the law without discrimination by governments, and, while identfying certain grounds for prohibited discrimination, they kept the field of grounds that would qualify wide open with the world "in particular".

In the absence of a clearly closed list of prohibited grounds for discrimination by the governments, what the field includes becomes a matter of interpretation. Interpreting what the law mwans is the role of the judiciary, not the Parliament. Same with whether or not an opposite-sex-only legal definition of marriage constitutes discrimination or not.

The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. And in a country ruled by the rule of law, interpreting what the Constitution means is the role of the judiciary.

On another note, it should be noted that, ironically, the definition of marriage that existed in Canadian law came from... a decision by a British JUDGE (Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee, 1866, an ex-Mormon wanted to divorce (on adultary grounds) his wife who had the Mormon church disolve the mariage and had remarried someone else. The judge said in essence: "a marriage is understood in Christiandom as being between one man and one woman, and since the Mormons ractice polygamy, their marriages are not valid under English law. You Sir contracted a Mormon marriage, it is not valid here, and therefore you are not legally married. Petition for divorce rejected )

[maldon_road]

In the absence of a clearly closed list of prohibited grounds for discrimination by the governments, what the field includes becomes a matter of interpretation. Interpreting what the law mwans is the role of the judiciary, not the Parliament. Same with whether or not an opposite-sex-only legal definition of marriage constitutes discrimination or not.

That's right. A matter of opinion by judges. A group of more conservative justices could have ruled that SSM was not a constitutional right. Given the nature of the issue I would have preferred for the courts to have deferred to Parliament. It's a real stretch to rule that sex discrimination is so broad a concept as to include prohibition of SSM.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is an issue of law. Through the Constitutional Act of 1982, the elected representative have stated clearly that certain rights were protected. In particular, they clearly protected equality before the law without discrimination by governments, and, while identfying certain grounds for prohibited discrimination, they kept the field of grounds that would qualify wide open with the world "in particular".

Excepting that discrimination based on sexual orientation, while originally included, was sacrificed on the political alter by Trudeau. Only subsequent "Charter Politics" would restore this gap early in this decade, because so called "gay marriage" would not have been supported by a majority of Canadians in the 1980's.

[maldon_road]

Excepting that discrimination based on sexual orientation, while originally included, was sacrificed on the political alter by Trudeau. Only subsequent "Charter Politics" would restore this gap early in this decade, because so called "gay marriage" would not have been supported by a majority of Canadians in the 1980's.

There's your problem with something like a constitutional charter of rights. Each succeeding generation will give it a different spin. I agree that there was no way sexual orientation could have been specifically added to the charter protections in 1982. But 20 years later the charter was used to expand the concept of marriage to include two persons of the same gender.

[CANADIEN]

There's your problem with something like a constitutional charter of rights. Each succeeding generation will give it a different spin. I agree that there was no way sexual orientation could have been specifically added to the charter protections in 1982. But 20 years later the charter was used to expand the concept of marriage to include two persons of the same gender.

Each generation interprets rights in a different way, whether there is a constitutional framework or not.

The two advantages of a constitutional framework (a Charter here, or the US Bill of Rights) are that:

a) rights acknowledged under that framework are a lot more difficult to take back

a court decision is (at least in theory) based on a legal analysis of the issue at hand, while a parliamentary decision is more often than not based on what will get the most votes.

To compare SSM with a "cause célèbre" in the US, there is no way the writers of the 14th Amendment meant for "equal protection before the law" to include integrated schools and railway cars. Yet the Supreme Court read it so in 1954. Had they deferred to the Legislatures of Southern States, desegregation would still be the norm today.

[maldon_road]

a court decision is (at least in theory) based on a legal analysis of the issue at hand, while a parliamentary decision is more often than not based on what will get the most votes.

That's the price we pay for democracy. As Churchill said, it may not be perfect but it sure beats the alternatives. I'd rather have politicians make the laws, not judges.

[CANADIEN]

Democracy without the rule of law (that is, the notion that none, even legislators, are above the law) and protection for everyone's rights is nothing more than a dictatorship of the majority.

As for the argument that the judges are making law... Indeed they are - one of the foundations of common law is court decisions establishing binding legal precedents. In this case, though, judges are INTERPRETING the law, that is measuring it against the mandatory yardstick that is the Constitution. Some times it is very easy (elections must be every five years or less), in other cases it is not (what constitutes discrimination).

It is especially in those cases that I would rather see an independent judiciary determine what is constitutional or not instead of the Parliament making that decision on the laws they voted on. Nobody would suggest that hockey teams make up their own rules as they step on the ice, but rather expect referees to interpret the rules; why would it be different when it comes to issues regarding how we govern ourselves and what rights we enjoy?

Edited May 20, 2008 by CANADIEN

[Moonlight Graham]

They should have asked Jesus point-blank what he thought about gays and if they should marry. It would be funny if they found some scrolls discovering Jesus and Peter were boyfriends.

Anyways, good for Cali.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Moonlight Graham