Obama Adviser Splits with President on Gay Marriage

blah blah

The Supreme Court recognized marriage as one of the "basic civil rights of man" in its 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision. The California Supreme Court also determined that marriage was a civil right in its same-sex marriage decision last year. While there is no Constitutionally enumerated right to marriage for anybody, there is an established body of law to support the right of marriage.

The fundamental right same-sex couples are asserting, however, is not right to marriage, but the right to equal treatment under the law. If heterosexuals have a right to legally marry their loved-ones, then homosexuals should have the same opportunity. As government policy, it makes no sense to encourage commitment and responsibility among heterosexuals while disadvantaging homosexuals who aspire to the same goals. This is especially true with increasing numbers of homosexuals raising children who benefit from family stability and legal protections afforded through marriage. Society does not benefit from making like arbitrarily more difficult for gays.

Same-sex marriage opponents have done everything they can to make sure that civil unions and domestic partnerships have no state or federal recognition. They've passed constitutional amendments making any designation other than marriage impossible. So, with same-sex marriage already legal in several states and no federal framework for recognizing gay couples in any other way, it's too late to say, "OK, let's call it a civil union."

Freedom means allowing others to live in ways that we may not choose to. How strange that the people who preach "limited government" and "religious liberty" are always the first to demand that government impose their moral codes on everyone else. If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't have one.

Finally, the comparison of same-sex marriage to polygamy is simply ignorant. Government provides advantages to marriage because society has an interest in encouraging stability and fidelity in family relationships. Any sociologist can tell you that interpersonal relationships become more complex and unstable with each new partner that is introduced. Polygamy also has a history of negative consequences for women and children who are involved, likely because a strong paternal figure is needed to counteract the instability that multiple partners creates. If there ever is a serious movement for sanctioned polygamy in the U.S. (which there currently is not), its advocates will have to answer some very different questions than are currently at stake with same-sex marriage.

Posted by: tierra | Nov 14, 2009 6:56:44 PM "Nonsense. Change happens generationally. ...... These were simply generational biases - ignorance if you will. The ignorance you speak of will pass as well.""****That is your opinion that these beliefs held by some are ignorances that will pass (not in my lifetime). It could be said that your beliefs opposite of those held by some are ignorant also and they will pass as well.

They want t force acceptance on people who honestly will always have an aversion to them and their lifestyles
__________________________________

Nonsense. Change happens generationally. Today's generation of young people are far more accepting than the last.

Remember there was a time people had an aversion to women voting, an aversion to african americans, or italian americans, or jewish americans, or ukranians or poles. These were simply generational biases - ignorance if you will.

The ignorance you speak of will pass as well.

Even if gays are eventually granted the "right to marry" it still will not diminish the aversion to the gay lifestyle illustrated by the fact that 30 states so far have voted to continue banning gay marriages. And please don't try to say its because of all the "right wing" christian activist skewing the votes. I thought they were supposed to be the ingnorant, archaic minority.

A few years back a national polling agency asked parents what their top ten frears for their children were. Number one was that their children would turn out to be gay or lesbian. That doesn;t bode well for the assumtion that we are becoming more "accepting". I can answer all the questions regarding why gays want to be married and why it's so important. They want t force acceptance on people who honestly will always have an aversion to them and their lifestyles.

When it comes to Obama's view on GLBT issues, he will say whatever the HRC wants and take big donations from the supporters wallets, then sic his AG and DoD officials to advocate against gay rights.

He need not worry about 2012, but 2010.

Posted by: Kelly | Nov 14, 2009 8:36:25 AM

'Evil' is an awful thing to call two people's love for each other because of your religious bias. If we have learned nothing from the recent contacts with Islam (and sharia law) it should be that religious biases are fraught with nonsense.

Lydia,

Your own words speak against you. You are amazed homosexuality is linked with all of the other "bad" stuff? By your expression you acknowledge the behaviour is immoral, yet you attempt to defend it. Be careful when you call something evil good, and good evil.

According to the dictionary, Marriage is social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Why change the definition? Union of LGBT has a nane, It's called civil union: A legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority.
also a dictionarey definition.

Do not see where there is anything wrong there! Different contract, different terms and conditions.

Boston College Law School shot video of Barnes' speech and Q&A that followed but initially held off on releasing it to the press because it wanted to “give the White House staffers a chance to view the video and give us their thumbs up on making it public.”
_____________________________________

When someone does something out of common consideration, it is not usually compared to Kim Jung ll.

-- "held off on releasing it to the press because it wanted to “give the White House staffers a chance to view the video and give us their thumbs up on making it public.” --

This is an amazing phenomena in America under Obama - the imposed complete preemptive self-censorship. Even Kim Jung Il had to work a bit to get such total subservience.

"The right of one consenting adult to marry one consenting adult should be a given. "

Unless, of course, they're first cousins, brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, already married, etc...

Right?

I am always amazed by people who quote the Bible, to say homosexuality is wrong, but totally ignore all the other obviously bad stuff it said was okay back then, like slavery, selling your daughters, etc.
Our laws aren't supposed to be based on any religion, anyway. It is supposed to be about people's rights. The right of one consenting adult to marry one consenting adult should be a given.

Sorry Teddy but I just can't let this go... It's like a skit from SNL...

"As the transcript shows, Ms. Barnes did not discuss her specific personal views on same-sex marriage or other issues."

Well what the heck is your article about then?

Teddy Davis... serious question. Was this an exercise in how many lines could possibly be written without EVER getting to the point of the headline? This has to be one of the most pedantic articles I've read here and that says a lot since ABCNEWS often seems to have an "off in their own world" attitude about a lot of issues.

re: Shellfish. I'll write this out because my scripture quotes were removed by an overzealous mod. You'll have to look them up yourself.

First of all, Jesus said he came to fulfill the law (OT) not replace it. In Romans there are specific verses about food.

If you believe all scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore comes from God, this should answer your shellfish questions.

If this survives, maybe I will try to post more.

"I do not understand the obsession with some to be able to be recognized as "married" to one another. Why is this validation needed by some? At the end of the day, who cares?"

I would say that as children growing up--way before we have any sense of sexuality--we become exposed to and very familiar with marriage, portrayed as a wonderful and significant event that we all want to happen. Much of it is ceremony, so it takes on spiritual significance. Kids play wedding, they don't play going to the Justice of the Peace to get a civil union.

Ryan C., That may be true about the "shellfish", and I'll have to look that one up, but God did say that homosexuality is an abomination. It is my belief that a man and man or a woman and a woman should not be "married". I will not be convinced otherwise, just like you will not be convinced otherwise on your beliefs. Also you have asked the question a couple different times "So do you think the majority should be able to limit the rights of a minority?" I ask you do you think the minority should limit the rights of the majority?

I'm fairly certain that I'll get called out as a "bigot" and question will be ignored, but how is marriage a "right" for anyone (gay, straight, or other)?

For thousands of years, the ritual and customs of marriage have been dictated by religious practices. Until the taxman got involved, government was generally not involved in marriage per se (this is a very broad statement).

As my best friend and best man at my wedding (who is gay) told me "marriage is an issue for churches/mosques/synagogues/etc., equal rights based on civil unions is a government issue. The two should not be confused. Keep the government out of the church and vice-versa" (note: he does not hold this position because he religious - he is not).

Marriage is a commitment of two people to each other. Frankly, if five people got together and made commitments to each other and rented out a ballroom at the local Hilton to celebrate with friends and family, I could care less (but this is against the law - why the government feels it is their place to do so, I don't completely understand).

I understand the demand from same-sex couples for equal treatment via civil unions. I do not understand the obsession with some to be able to be recognized as "married" to one another. Why is this validation needed by some? At the end of the day, who cares? The most important thing is that the parties involved have a mutually shared commitment.