Skip to main content

View Diary: I Want To See My Son Marry Before I Die. (273 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The topic was DOMA, not DADT. (4+ / 0-)

    Obama's position on DOMA, as I understand it, is he supports its repeal.

    This is NOT the same as supporting federal marriage equality!

    It is a position that would incorporate individual state definitions of marriage, the vast majority of which are based on inequality.  It does not create a federal version of marriage equality.  It is a states' rights position.

    He has made clear that his personal view, on what a state's policy should be, is same-sex couples should not get marriage rights, only civil unions.

    •  So you're saying (0+ / 0-)

      that the President does not support the same federal rights, privileges and benefits for gay partnerships. In other words Obama believes that gay partnerships should have fewer/inferior federal rights, privileges and benefits than heterosexuals? Please clarify.

      •  State and federal. (6+ / 0-)

        Through his support DOMA's repeal (which, frankly, we never really heard much of during his campaign and hear virtually nothing about now), without affirmative federal marriage rights to take its place, I believe he is in essence saying that the federal definition of marriage should be whatever your state definition is.  If you are a MA gay couple, check off the married box on your federal tax forms; if you are a WY gay couple, you have to file as two single people.

        On the state level, and personally, he favors civil unions but not marriage equality.  (To continue the above example, he would rather there be more folks in the WY couple's situation than in the MA couple's situation.)  The federal significance of this position is that since there would be no state "marriage," there is still no federal "marriage" even if DOMA is repealed.

        So, I would characterize his position as one of marriage inequality at both the federal and state level.  It's quite unfortunate.

        •  So he wants the rights/privileges conferred (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tnichlsn, IPLawyer, Socratic Method

          in the same-sex partnership to be determined by the individual states, not by a federal provision that guarantees equality of same-sex partnerships regardless of state or province? Because the discrimination will be practiced at the state level if there is no provison that overrides the states' decsions.

          So yes I agree, that is definitely discriminatory.

          •  Yes, I think that's right. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tnichlsn, Hopefruit2, Socratic Method

            To be clear, the civil unions he supports would confer some of the benefits of marriage.  But even if they were to include all of the same tax breaks, immigration rights, hospital visitation rights, etc., there would still be the whole "separate but equal" issue at both the federal and state level.  It is still discrimination to say "sure, you can have all of the same benefits, but you shouldn't get to call your relationship a 'marriage' like I do."

            •  And if the states (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tnichlsn

              decide that what you call your relationship determines things like how you file your taxes, then it is discrimination.

              My original thoughts were that the term "marriage" did not carry gravitas beyond the biblical/church/religious connotations of what marriage meant. But it sounds like "marriage" has a very specific meaning that assumes certain benefits that other terms like "civil unions" do not.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (134)
  • Community (62)
  • Elections (40)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Culture (30)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Media (29)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Education (23)
  • Spam (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Labor (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Texas (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site