Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Obama's Gay Marriage Flip Flop

["Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

If Obama were to be perfectly consistent in his positions, where should he
stand now?  In favor of civil unions, but California is not heading that
way -- they are going either for marriage with full legal protections, or
for no legal protection at all.

Where are you getting this?  I happen to know for  fact that is not true. The constitutional amendment merely says this:

SECTION I. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

SECTION 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

That says nothing about Civil Unions being changed in one slightest bit. So if Obama supports civil unions, then he should be supporting this Constitutional Amendment

This is not inconsistent with wanting states to decide gay marriage
issues.  If he wants states to decide, that means he opposes a national
ban on gay marriage.  It does not mean that he won't tell states what he
would like to see them doing.  What he'd like to see is civil unions --
less divisive, full legal protection.

But that is not what he is supporting. Civil Unions are already allowed in California  and the ballot measure in November will not change that. So again, why doesn't he just say what he believes in? The only thing that the civil union law does not give is the way people file taxes. If there is a benefit from filing jointly, which I personally believe there is no benefit to and why it is not included, then gay civil unions partners do not get it. I personally believe that if there was some benefit to filing joint taxes, then that provision would have made it into the Civil Unions legislation, since it does not, or at least did not when it was passed, then it was left out. Everything else is legalized.

If Obama wanted to be consist and did not want to pander to gays in this state, he would simply say, "I support civil unions, however I would like California to make civil unions equal to marriage in everyway." He cannot say that though, since his base would get upset with him, so he has to drum up some ridiculous statement that he opposes the Constitutional Amendment on the grounds that it is not "equal" to a marriage in every way.

I think he makes a lot of sense.

In this, he really does not, if he is saying that this amendment will ban civil unions for gays as well, then he makes absolutely no sense at all. If he is picking nits over the ability to file joint tax returns as the basis for his disapproval, then he is barely making any sense at all and would look a lot better if he just stood to his original stance.

-- 
Thanks
F Vernon Green
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion