Should we be disappointed at Obama?

[OrlandoMike]

Thanks for the HOPE link. That was BEAUTIFUL, inspirational, and ....

I cant help but think, high up there in heaven, Harvey Milk is smiling knowing his work is still being honored!

GO SEE MILK!!!!

 

[Uncle Remus]

I cant help but think, high up there in heaven, Harvey Milk is smiling knowing his work is still being honored!

GO SEE MILK!!!!

and carried on.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Here's an interestin' read: TIME

 

[OrlandoMike]

Great read, and I've been listening to the gay channel on Cirius quite a bit about this subject. I'm still torn. But I will wait patiently and watch Obama with an open mind. He hasn't even been sworn in yet. There are a lot of great things planned on 1-20-09, even though there is one very broad black mark on the agenda.

Lets hope Obama comes through......

 

[Uncle Remus]

Great read, and I've been listening to the gay channel on Cirius quite a bit about this subject. I'm still torn. But I will wait patiently and watch Obama with an open mind. He hasn't even been sworn in yet. There are a lot of great things planned on 1-20-09, even though there is one very broad black mark on the agenda.

Lets hope Obama comes through......

I'm hopin' it comes from here:

Obama's selection of Warren also has to be viewed in tandem with his other pick: Joseph Lowery. The founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference is nothing if not a gutsy choice. He's a rare African-American minister who has been outspoken in his support of gay marriage.
Link

 

[mjrseb]

I feel the need to say this, too.

We can't sit back and expect Obama to change the world for us. We have to lead the way, and encourage him to condone and support what WE do.

No one is going to give us anything. We have to work for equality and never expect someone else to do for us what we aren't willing to do for ourselves.

Honestly, and it kills me to say this....But Obama has so much on his plate, Thanks W!, that I think we may have to just be a little patient for a while. This may be one of those situations where we all have to pull together for a while, get this country back on track, then we can worry and work on our own issues....

very well put!!!

 

[DawnM]

Melissa Etheridge

Oscar and Grammy Award-Winning Singer/Songwriter
Posted December 22, 2008 | 05:10 PM (EST)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-etheridge/the-choice-is-ours-now_b_152947.html



This is a message for my brothers and sisters who have fought so long
and so hard for gay rights and liberty. We have spent a long time
climbing up this mountain, looking at the impossible, changing a
thousand year-old paradigm. We have asked for the right to love the
human of our choice, and to be protected equally under the laws of this
great country. The road at times has been so bloody, and so horrible,
and so disheartening. From being blamed for 9/11 and Katrina, to
hateful crimes committed against us, we are battle weary. We watched as
our nation took a step in the right direction, against all odds and
elected Barack Obama as our next leader. Then we were jerked back into
the last century as we watched our rights taken away by prop 8 in
California. Still sore and angry we felt another slap in the face as
the man we helped get elected seemingly invited a gay-hater to address
the world at his inauguration.

I hadn't heard of Pastor Rick Warren before all of this. When I heard
the news, in its neat little sound bite form that we are so accustomed
to, it painted the picture for me. This Pastor Rick must surely be one
hate spouting, money grabbing, bad hair televangelist like all the
others. He probably has his own gay little secret bathroom stall
somewhere, you know. One more hater working up his congregation to hate
the gays, comparing us to pedophiles and those who commit incest, blah
blah blah. Same 'ole thing. Would I be boycotting the inauguration?
Would we be marching again?

Well, I have to tell you my friends, the universe has a sense of humor
and indeed works in mysterious ways. As I was winding down the
promotion for my Christmas album I had one more stop last night. I'd
agreed to play a song I'd written with my friend Salman Ahmed, a Sufi
Muslim from Pakistan. The song is called "Ring The Bells," and it's a
call for peace and unity in our world. We were going to perform our
song for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a group of Muslim Americans
that tries to raise awareness in this country, and the world, about the
majority of good, loving, Muslims. I was honored, considering some in
the Muslim religion consider singing to be against God, while other
Muslim countries have harsh penalties, even death for homosexuals. I
felt it was a very brave gesture for them to make. I received a call
the day before to inform me of the keynote speaker that night... Pastor
Rick Warren. I was stunned. My fight or flight instinct took over,
should I cancel? Then a calm voice inside me said, "Are you really
about peace or not?"

I told my manager to reach out to Pastor Warren and say "In the spirit
of unity I would like to talk to him." They gave him my phone number.
On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and
before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most
of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn't sound like a
gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words
that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He
believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He
struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage
redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he
regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation
about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit
incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He
invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and
kids. He told me of his wife's struggle with breast cancer just a year
before mine.

When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an
open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.

Brothers and sisters the choice is ours now. We have the world's
attention. We have the capability to create change, awesome change in
this world, but before we change minds we must change hearts. Sure,
there are plenty of hateful people who will always hold on to their
bigotry like a child to a blanket. But there are also good people out
there, Christian and otherwise that are beginning to listen. They don't
hate us, they fear change. Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches
and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands. Maybe
instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass and volunteer
for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work
for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world.

Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us.

I know, call me a dreamer, but I feel a new era is upon us.

I will be attending the inauguration with my family, and with hope in
my heart. I know we are headed in the direction of marriage equality
and equal protection for all families.

Happy Holidays my friends and a Happy New Year to you.

Peace on earth, goodwill toward all men and women... and everyone
in-between.

 

[DVCajun]

thank you for posting this. I hadn't read it before this post, but it reaffirmed the hope that has been in my heart lately. NO we won't all agree, but YES we can make the world a better place for us all.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

 

[tig82174]

....I don't often post over here (I'm an LGBT Boards lurker! ), but I do read many of these threads....but now that this thread has begun to discuss Melissa Etheridge's view on Pastor Warren, I really have to respond to this one.

I love Melissa Etheridge as much as the next LGBTQ person....but I'll respectfully have to beg to differ with her here....and, even more importantly, I really hope that LGBTQ folks will choose to do their OWN research on Pastor Warren and not read this one gay icon's personal view/experience and adopt it as their own----because, sadly, I think Melissa is being a bit myopic here. You can even read the responses to her column on huffingtonpost and see that many of the readers there aren't buying it either.

I, like many others, UNDERSTAND why Obama made this choice----but understanding and agreeing (or even ACCEPTING) it are very very different things. Make no mistake: PASTOR RICK WARREN IS NOT AN ALLY TO LGBTQ PEOPLE. He has publicly said that we are unnatural. He has publicly stated that he does and would counsel LGBTQ folks to turn to heterosexuality. He is a staunch supporter of "ex-gay" programs. He has stated that the official policy of his church is that any openly LGBTQ person who would not "turn from homosexuality" would be denied membership in his church.

I'm sorry, but no matter how many Melissa Etheridge CD's he might own, the man is not our friend and he is not our supporter---and this issue is not one of just the semantics of "marriage." One need only read direct quotes from him over the years on gay issues and gay identities to understand that. I believe my "favorite" Warren quote might be: "In looking at the hierarchy of evil, I would say homosexuality is not the worst sin." (Therein indicating that we, as LGBTQ people, are indeed EVIL....we're just not the MOST evil----gee, thanks.)

 

[Uncle Remus]

....I don't often post over here (I'm an LGBT Boards lurker! ), but I do read many of these threads....but now that this thread has begun to discuss Melissa Etheridge's view on Pastor Warren, I really have to respond to this one.

I love Melissa Etheridge as much as the next LGBTQ person....but I'll respectfully have to beg to differ with her here....and, even more importantly, I really hope that LGBTQ folks will choose to do their OWN research on Pastor Warren and not read this one gay icon's personal view/experience and adopt it as their own----because, sadly, I think Melissa is being a bit myopic here. You can even read the responses to her column on huffingtonpost and see that many of the readers there aren't buying it either.

I, like many others, UNDERSTAND why Obama made this choice----but understanding and agreeing (or even ACCEPTING) it are very very different things. Make no mistake: PASTOR RICK WARREN IS NOT AN ALLY TO LGBTQ PEOPLE. He has publicly said that we are unnatural. He has publicly stated that he does and would counsel LGBTQ folks to turn to heterosexuality. He is a staunch supporter of "ex-gay" programs. He has stated that the official policy of his church is that any openly LGBTQ person who would not "turn from homosexuality" would be denied membership in his church.

I'm sorry, but no matter how many Melissa Etheridge CD's he might own, the man is not our friend and he is not our supporter---and this issue is not one of just the semantics of "marriage." One need only read direct quotes from him over the years on gay issues and gay identities to understand that. I believe my "favorite" Warren quote might be: "In looking at the hierarchy of evil, I would say homosexuality is not the worst sin." (Therein indicating that we, as LGBTQ people, are indeed EVIL....we're just not the MOST evil----gee, thanks.)

I, for one am glad to see somethin' good come out of Melisssa's statement and that's to hear you speak out on it so well.
Thank you, very well put 'n I totally agree with ya. Hope you'll post back in here more often.

 

[ConcKahuna]

Biden: Gay Community Don't Worry
By On Top Magazine Staff
Published: December 23, 2008

Speaking on Larry King Live, Vice President-elect Joe Biden said the gay and lesbian community had “nothing to worry about” concerning Barack Obama's commitment to gay rights.

Obama's choice of Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration sent shivers up the spines of gay activists last week. Warren supports the outlawing of abortion in all cases and is a staunch gay rights opponent. But his moderate tone on AIDS, poverty and climate change have made him controversial among social conservatives.

Gay activists say Warren is homophobic. They point out that his evangelical Saddleback megachurch in Southern California bans gays and lesbians from attendance, he supports the controversial ex-gay movement that claims gays can be “cured” through prayer, and, most importantly, he supported the passage of Proposition 8 – the California constitutional amendment that yanked back the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry in the state.

In that heated gay marriage debate, Warren likened gay marriage to an incestuous relationship, pedophilia and even polygamy.

Openly gay Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank (Democrat) said the pick was a mistake.

“Mr. Warren compared same-sex couples to incest. I found that deeply offensive and unfair,” Rep. Frank said on CNN's Late Edition.

“If he was inviting the Rev. Warren to participate in a forum and to make a speech, that would be a good thing,” Frank said. “But being singled out to give the prayer at the inauguration is a high honor. It has traditionally given a mark of great respect. And, yes, I think it was wrong to single him out for this mark of respect.”

But speaking with King, Biden said Obama's commitment to the gay community was firm.

“Barack Obama said you've got to reach out,” Biden told King about the Warren controversy. “You've got to reach a hand of friendship across the aisle and across philosophies in this country.”

“We can't continue to be a red and blue country. We can't be divided like we have been. And he's made good on his promise.”

“And I would say to the gay and lesbian community, they have nothing to worry about. Barack Obama, every aspect of his life, every aspect of his public life, and every commitment he's made relating to equality for all people, will be things that he will stick with and that they should view this in the spirit in which he offered the opportunity to – to Mr. Warren,” Biden said.

At the end of the interview, King asked Biden if we're going to be OK as nation.

“Yes, we are,” Biden answered. “We're going to be OK because of the American people. They have more grit, determination and courage than you can imagine.”

http://ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=2944&MediaType=1&Category=26

 

[edwardsfire]

I personally know of alot of folks opposed to gay marriage simply due to personal and religious convictions.
That does not mean they are bigots or anything else. They are intitled to their opinions and beliefs.
I DO beleive Obama made the right choice concerning R. Warren.
Now that he is President he MUST move drastically to the center "right" or he will be doomed a 1 term president (See Carter).
And honestly, it is very difficult to find a "nationally" recognized Pastor that wouldnt be opposed to abortion or gay marriage.
So, i dont see what else Obama could do.
Note: I write this due to my brother being a gay man. I love him and support him.
As for me, i oppose gay marriage but i SUPPORT civil unions. My brother is in a civil union and actually has no plans for the "marriage" They have the benifits and see no point.
There is a HUGE difference between hate and a difference of an opinion.
I write this as a friend of the gay community. And, the love of Seth...My brother.

 

[rpmdfw]

I personally know of alot of folks opposed to gay marriage simply due to personal and religious convictions.
That does not mean they are bigots or anything else. They are intitled to their opinions and beliefs.
I DO beleive Obama made the right choice concerning R. Warren.
Now that he is President he MUST move drastically to the center "right" or he will be doomed a 1 term president (See Carter).
And honestly, it is very difficult to find a "nationally" recognized Pastor that wouldnt be opposed to abortion or gay marriage.
So, i dont see what else Obama could do.
Note: I write this due to my brother being a gay man. I love him and support him.
As for me, i oppose gay marriage but i SUPPORT civil unions. My brother is in a civil union and actually has no plans for the "marriage" They have the benifits and see no point.
There is a HUGE difference hate and a difference of an opinion.

There is also a HUGE difference between a difference of opinion with someone and working against their rights. There's also a huge difference between holding a different opinion from someone and preaching loudly to the world that they are "un-natural" and not worthy of salvation due to the way that they were created.

Rick Warren has done both of those things. Yes, he's entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to decide that gays and lesbians are "second class citizens" in this great nation of ours where "All men are created equal."

You are in support of civil unions, where gays and lesbians have the same rights, benefits, & responsabilites of legal marriage: a "separate but equal" scenario, if you will. The Supreme Court of the United States has already decided that "separate but not equal" is inherently discriminatory, and does not in fact bestow equality to all. So, I either want to be able to marry my partner the same way straight people marry each other, or have the laws changed so that everyone has to get a "civil union" and marriages are only performed by churches. That would be equality. Everything else is discrimination. Our time has come. We're American citizens, we pay our taxes, we vote, we serve on juries, we fight in the armed forces (as long as they don't ask and we don't tell--which is abusurd). We deserve to be treated with human dignity and full legal equality. Nothing less is acceptable.

Frankly, I don't really care about Rick Warren being selected to deliver the invocation, because I rarely listen to all that "mumo-jumbo god talk" anyway and just tune it out. So if Obama wants to reach out to the religious extremists that's fine. As long as Warren is not allowed to turn the inauguration into a platform for him to speak in favor of the discrimination against American citizens of any kind. That's not what our country stands for, and it has no place in a celebration of our democracy in action, such as the inauguration of a newly elected president.

 

[edwardsfire]

There is also a HUGE difference between a difference of opinion with someone and working against their rights. There's also a huge difference between holding a different opinion from someone and preaching loudly to the world that they are "un-natural" and not worthy of salvation due to the way that they were created.

Rick Warren has done both of those things. Yes, he's entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to decide that gays and lesbians are "second class citizens" in this great nation of ours where "All men are created equal."

You are in support of civil unions, where gays and lesbians have the same rights, benefits, & responsabilites of legal marriage: a "separate but equal" scenario, if you will. The Supreme Court of the United States has already decided that "separate but not equal" is inherently discriminatory, and does not in fact bestow equality to all. So, I either want to be able to marry my partner the same way straight people marry each other, or have the laws changed so that everyone has to get a "civil union" and marriages are only performed by churches. That would be equality. Everything else is discrimination. Our time has come. We're American citizens, we pay our taxes, we vote, we serve on juries, we fight in the armed forces (as long as they don't ask and we don't tell--which is abusurd). We deserve to be treated with human dignity and full legal equality. Nothing less is acceptable.

Frankly, I don't really care about Rick Warren being selected to deliver the invocation, because I rarely listen to all that "mumo-jumbo god talk" anyway and just tune it out. So if Obama wants to reach out to the religious extremists that's fine. As long as Warren is not allowed to turn the inauguration into a platform for him to speak in favor of the discrimination against American citizens of any kind. That's not what our country stands for, and it has no place in a celebration of our democracy in action, such as the inauguration of a newly elected president.

Im not sure but..i think that the term "marriage" is originally coined from the church.
If so, then even the courts cant legislate "the term marriage"
Im pretty sure thats why we have civil unions.
not really sure on the "technical" aspects of the whole "legal" issues.
The problem is that even if the supreme court allowed "gay marriage" which it will never touch...(states rights) the "church" still wont.
But none the less, only a play on words.
Its my belief that if a couple CAN get the benifits of "marriage" with having legal civil unions that maybe thats the best way to go.
Both parties get what they want.
1. No gay marriage
2. Civil Unions (which allows for insurance and other vital benifits).
Just a thought.
I AM your friend, We just have a difference of an opinion.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Im not sure but..i think that the term "marriage" is originally coined from the church.
If so, then even the courts cant legislate "the term marriage"
Im pretty sure thats why we have civil unions.
not really sure on the "technical" aspects of the whole "legal" issues.
The problem is that even if the supreme court allowed "gay marriage" which it will never touch...(states rights) the "church" still wont.
But none the less, only a play on words.
Its my belief that if a couple CAN get the benifits of "marriage" with having legal civil unions that maybe thats the best way to go.
Both parties get what they want.
1. No gay marriage
2. Civil Unions (which allows for insurance and other vital benifits).
Just a thought.
I AM your friend, We just have a difference of an opinion.

The federal government does not recognize civil unions and marriage has very little to do wih religious beliefs since married is a legal staus in this country. Many atheists are married not civil unioned.

Oh and this is not an opinion, it's a fact.

Thank you for your friendship, however you should become more informed and educated about the civil rights and liberties that are denied to the LGBTQ community and also to their children.

Equal Access to Marriage

"Civil Marriage" is a descriptive term that helps to illustrate that equal civil rights is the agenda - not changing religious beliefs.


Why do people need to talk about civil marriage equality?

The country is grappling with this issue. We must educate people on the rights that come with civil marriage, and the difference between civil and religious marriage, and we must ensure that fairness is always a part of the discussion.

Majority support does not make something right or wrong. In 1983, 16 years after the Supreme Court struck down anti-interracial marriage laws in Loving v. Virginia, only 43 percent of Americans approved of interracial marriage.

In 1948, 19 years before the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, the California Supreme Court ruled on an interracial case, Perez v. Lippold, with a four justice majority affirming the right of interracial marriages. The majority opinion said that each person seeking a license to marry the "wrong" kind of person, "finds himself barred by law from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains."

The decision in Perez marked the beginning of the end of race discrimination in marriage -- before legislators in most states were willing to stand against discrimination, and before the polls showed the public's acceptance of equality in marriage or other civil rights. Some state had to show leadership, and the court was properly asked to provide it through a direct and timely challenge to existing discrimination. History has upheld that decision, and we now view those judges as civil rights heroes.

Aren't civil unions the same thing?

Civil unions and domestic partnership are important steps to full marriage equality for GLBT couples - but they ultimately support the notion that GLBT couples are separate and unequal from other Americans, which is wrong. Separate is not equal. Furthermore, civil unions are not recognized by the federal government and do not confer the more than 1,000 rights and benefits that the federal government grants to married couples.

Isn't marriage a religious institution?

Civil marriage and religious marriage are two separate things. Religious institutions will never be forced to bless relationships with which they disagree, just as today religious institutions can refuse to marry couples of different faiths or individuals who have been divorced.

Many religions and faith-based traditions recognize and welcome same-sex couples and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people into their congregations - others do not. Religious institutions will always be able to define marriage as they see fit, however the state should treat all people and all families equally under the law.

If same-sex couples are allowed to get married, wouldn't that harm the institution of marriage?

Recognizing that GLBT couples require the same tools to care for and protect each other and their families does not undermine or harm marriage rights of heterosexual couples. How can GLBT couples and families receiving the rights and responsibilities of marriage harm heterosexual marriage?

Shouldn't groups that support family values, value all families? Americans who support family values should support strengthening all American families.

When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down anti-interracial marriage laws in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case, many of the arguments against the decision - that it would lead to widespread polygamy, bigamy, and a moral breakdown of the country - are the same arguments we hear today against legalizing civil marriage for same-sex couples.

Why do gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people want to get married?

Growing up, each of us is taught that one day finding a soulmate and building a life together is an integral part of the American dream, and GLBT people share in that dream. Gay and lesbian couples share their lives, their loves, and their hearts just like any other couple does.

Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples are patriotic, hard-working citizens who pay their taxes and support their country the same as any other American. GLBT couples love each other just as deeply and their commitment to one another is just as resolute as it is for heterosexual couples.

The 2000 Census showed that same-sex couples are living in nearly every county in this country. Estimates from the Census and other studies show that there are at least 1 million children in America being raised by GLBT parents. All children deserve the stability and protections that come from having two parents who are legally bonded by marriage. Discriminating against children is wrong.

Marriage is a major building block for strong families and communities. Denying marriage to GLBT couples weakens GLBT couples and families.

Why is civil marriage important?

Through civil marriage, couples are granted more than 1,000 federal rights, benefits and responsibilities under law - along with hundreds of state level rights and protections. The government uses the legal recognition of civil marriage to grant these rights, which include Social Security survivor benefits, hospital visitation rights and the ability to inherit a spouse's property without being taxed.

Many of the rights and benefits that accompany civil marriage are recently established rights, not age-old traditions. For example, Social Security was created in 1935. Survivor's insurance was added in 1939. Family and medical leave didn't come into existence until the '90s.
~ http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/actioncenter/talking.html

And here are those rights denied to American LGBTQs:

Effects of Public Policies on Same Gender Couples and Their Children

Legal and Financial Effects

Civil marriage is a legal status through which societal recognition and support are given to couples and families. It provides a context for legal, financial, and psychosocial well-being, an endorsement of interdependent care, and a form of public acknowledgment and respect for personal bonds. Opponents of same-gender civil marriage often suggest that the legal recognition afforded by civil marriage for same-gender couples is unnecessary, noting that all of the rights and protections that are needed can be obtained by drawing up legal agreements with an attorney. In reality, same-gender partners can secure only a small number of very basic agreements, such as power of attorney, naming the survivor in one's will (at the risk of paying an inheritance tax, which does not apply to heterosexual married couples), and protecting assets in a trust. Even these agreements, however, represent only the "best guesses" of the legal community and may not withstand challenges from extended family members of the couple. Such challenges are not rare given the lack of societal understanding and acceptance of homosexuality and same-gender partnerships. Moreover, legal agreements cannot win for the couple and their children access to the rights, benefits, and protections afforded by the federal and state governments to heterosexual married couples.

As noted earlier, the Government Accountability Office has identified a total of 1138 federal statutory provisions classified to the US Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving rights, benefits, and protections. In addition, there are numerous state-based programs, benefits, rights, and protections that are based on marital status.

For same-gender couples and their children, enactment of marriage amendments halts the possibility of obtaining many legal and financial rights, benefits, and protections such as:

* legal recognition of the couple's commitment to and responsibility for one another;
* legal recognition of joint parenting rights when a child is born or adopted;
* legal recognition of a child's relationship to both parents;
* joint or coparent adoption (in most states);
* second-parent adoption (in most states);
* foster parenting (in some states);
* eligibility for public housing and housing subsidies;
* ability to own a home as "tenants by the entirety" (ie, a special kind of property ownership for married couples through which both spouses have the right to enjoy the entire property, and when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse gets title to the property [in some states]);
* protection of marital home from creditors (in some states);
* automatic financial decision-making authority on behalf of one's partner;
* access to employer-based health insurance and other benefits for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children (considered a taxable benefit for same-gender couples by the Internal Revenue Service, which is not the case for married heterosexual couples);
* access to spouse benefits under Medicare and certain Medicaid benefits (spouses are considered essential to individuals receiving Medicaid benefits and, therefore, are eligible for medical assistance themselves; family coverage programs would deny coverage to same-gender partners and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children);
* ability to enroll nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children in public and medical assistance programs;
* ability of both parents to consent to medical care or authorize emergency medical treatment for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated or ailing partner;
* recognition as next of kin for the purpose of visiting partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child in hospitals or other facilities;
* ability to take advantage of the federal Family Medical Leave Act to care for a sick partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* ability to obtain life insurance (because of findings of no insurable interest in one's partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child);
* ability to obtain joint homeowner and automobile insurance policies and take advantage of family discounts;
* recognition as an authority in educational settings to register a child for school, be involved in a child's education plan, and provide consent on waivers and sign permission forms;
* ability to travel with a child if it will require proof of being a legal parent;
* access to spousal benefits of worker's compensation;
* ability to file joint income tax returns and take advantage of family-related deductions;
* privilege afforded to married heterosexual couples that protects one spouse from testifying against another in court;
* immigration and residency privileges for partners and children from other countries;
* protections and compensation for families of crime victims (state and federal programs);
* access to the courts for a legally structured means of dissolution of the relationship (divorce is not recognized because marriage is not recognized);
* visitation rights and/or custody of children after the dissolution of a partnership;
* children's rights to financial support from and ongoing relationships with both parents should the partnership be dissolved;
* legal standing of one partner if a child is removed from the legal/adoptive parent and home by child protective services;
* domestic violence protections such as restraining orders;
* automatic, tax- and penalty-free inheritance from a deceased partner or parent of shared assets, property, or personal items by the surviving partner and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* children's right to maintain a relationship with a nonbiological/not-jointly-adopting parent in the event of the death of the other parent;
* surviving parent's right to maintain custody of and care for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* Social Security survivor benefits for a surviving partner and children after the death of one partner;
* exemptions from property tax increases in the event of the death of a partner (offered in some states to surviving spouses);
* automatic access to pensions and other retirement accounts by surviving partner;
* access to deceased partner's veteran's benefits;
* ability to roll deceased partner's 401(k) funds into an individual retirement account without paying up to 70% of it in taxes and penalties; and
* right to sue for wrongful death of a deceased partner.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined in 2004 that allowing civil marriage for same-gender couples would have a positive effect on the federal budget. The CBO found that allowing same-gender couples to marry would increase federal income tax revenues by $400 million annually to the end of 2010, resulting largely from the "marriage penalty tax." Although Social Security payments and spending on insurance coverage for partners of federal workers would rise over time, other expenditures such as Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income would decrease. The net result would be a savings of nearly $1 billion per year. The Williams Institute, a think tank at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law, had similar findings on the federal budget and for several state budgets.
MORE

 

[edwardsfire]

The federal government does not recognize civil unions and marriage has very little to do wih religious beliefs since married is a legal staus in this country. Many atheists are married not civil unioned.

Oh and this is not an opinion, it's a fact.

Thank you for your friendship, however you should become more informed and educated about the civil rights and liberties that are denied to the LGBTQ community and also to their children.



And here are those rights denied to American LGBTQs:

Certainly we arent comparing RACE to a lifestyle are we? It seems alot of your example was concerning inter racial marriage. That a whole differwent issue that IS a civil rights issue. Not a lifestyle issue.

Anyways, Everyone has an opinion concerning this issue.
In the end, I truly defend "states rights"
I think this issue will be here for a long time.
We have already see some states allow Gay marriage and others (Cal.) vote to not allow it. (that was a shocker) to be honest.
It was interesting to see just WHY Prop 8 passed. (It wasnt due to the White evangelical vote.) Yet, it WAS due to the minority evangelical vote.
Either way, Folks have their religious beliefs and no one can take that away, nor should they.
I may disagree with my brother on this topic but in the end we love each other and treat it like any other political issue.
But in the end, We would die for each other.
And, getting back to the question. Obama has to do what he has to do to get re elected. And that-
will require a move to the Center...a big move.
I have given my opinion as a brother of a gay man. I dont want to cause any issues so i have given my opinion and now no more.
Peace.

 

[DawnM]

I don't think anyone was suggesting that Rick Warren is an "ally" to the gay cause. I think the point of the post was to say that maybe we can agree to disagree and still get along.

One thing I have noticed, particularly in this election, but also as a culture,.....we often tend to be all or nothing. You must 100% agree with me or you are the enemy. I have seen this in the negotiations with the auto industry (Congress vs. Union) and in regaurds to political issues....just pick one! We dwell on the extremes.

I don't consider myself to be an ally to the gay cause. I am even a born again Christian, but I can love and respect those who are different or think differently than I do. I also don't expect people to always agree with me. And I would certainly never want anyone to be a 2nd class citizen.

I just think Melissa is reaching out and trying to find some common ground and I appreciate that. I heard her and her partner (or are they married and it is wife???) being interviewed and I was so impressed. The partner is from a very conservative mid-western background and her family has had a hard time with her being a lesbian, but it seemed that because they were both so good at reaching out anyway, there is a bridge there and an open line of communication.

Please don't write me off because I am a Christian and I certainly don't want to write you off because I don't 100% agree with you. Agreeing fully isn't at all what I see this being about.

Dawn

....I don't often post over here (I'm an LGBT Boards lurker! ), but I do read many of these threads....but now that this thread has begun to discuss Melissa Etheridge's view on Pastor Warren, I really have to respond to this one.

I love Melissa Etheridge as much as the next LGBTQ person....but I'll respectfully have to beg to differ with her here....and, even more importantly, I really hope that LGBTQ folks will choose to do their OWN research on Pastor Warren and not read this one gay icon's personal view/experience and adopt it as their own----because, sadly, I think Melissa is being a bit myopic here. You can even read the responses to her column on huffingtonpost and see that many of the readers there aren't buying it either.

I, like many others, UNDERSTAND why Obama made this choice----but understanding and agreeing (or even ACCEPTING) it are very very different things. Make no mistake: PASTOR RICK WARREN IS NOT AN ALLY TO LGBTQ PEOPLE. He has publicly said that we are unnatural. He has publicly stated that he does and would counsel LGBTQ folks to turn to heterosexuality. He is a staunch supporter of "ex-gay" programs. He has stated that the official policy of his church is that any openly LGBTQ person who would not "turn from homosexuality" would be denied membership in his church.

I'm sorry, but no matter how many Melissa Etheridge CD's he might own, the man is not our friend and he is not our supporter---and this issue is not one of just the semantics of "marriage." One need only read direct quotes from him over the years on gay issues and gay identities to understand that. I believe my "favorite" Warren quote might be: "In looking at the hierarchy of evil, I would say homosexuality is not the worst sin." (Therein indicating that we, as LGBTQ people, are indeed EVIL....we're just not the MOST evil----gee, thanks.)

 

[hematite153]

Im not sure but..i think that the term "marriage" is originally coined from the church.
If so, then even the courts cant legislate "the term marriage"

No, sorry, "marriage" is a legal term.

The problem is that even if the supreme court allowed "gay marriage" which it will never touch...(states rights) the "church" still wont.

Actually, MANY churches believe that the legal exclusion of same-sex unions is wrong and contradictory to the teachings of Christianity. I am legally married, but, before the laws became equal my church had been marrying same-sex couples for 12 years.

Also, the first country in the world to make a modern law in favour of equal marriage was Spain--a deeply catholic country where the church has a lot of political power.

Certainly we arent comparing RACE to a lifestyle are we?

Others have already given you a lot of examples of why "separate but equal" is not actually equal. But, are you seriously saying that my decision to live life the way God has called me to live, to marry, making a lifetime commitment to family, to attend church, to work, pay taxes, etc. is a LIFESTYLE worthy of discrimination?????

I feel sorry for your brother and hope that you are reading some of the information people have given you.

 

[hematite153]

I think the point of the post was to say that maybe we can agree to disagree and still get along....

I don't consider myself to be an ally to the gay cause. I am even a born again Christian, but I can love and respect those who are different or think differently than I do. I also don't expect people to always agree with me. And I would certainly never want anyone to be a 2nd class citizen.
...
Please don't write me off because I am a Christian and I certainly don't want to write you off because I don't 100% agree with you.

I appreciate this perspective. I have no need for the entire world to think the same--wouldn't that be boring?

Believe me, nobody here will write you off because you are a Christian (at least I'm pretty sure none of the regulars will). Many of us are Christians too--in fact, one of our moderators is a Priest.

I think we end up being very argumentative because we are so used to people like the last poster (before you) who say they are our friend while arguing that we shouldn't have the rights of full citizens.

You and I probably don't agree on many issues. I don't personally know enough about Rick Warren to know whether or not I think it's problematic for him to be part of the inauguration, but, I do agree that Obama is President of the entire country and he needs to find a way to show that he respects those he disagrees with.

The question remains, can he show respect to those he disagrees with, but, still make the political moves necessary to remove the citizenship class system that seems to be becoming more and more entrenched all the time. Likewise, I hope that if you are ever forced to make decisions on these issues you are able to vote for equality and love and respect for all rather than for discrimination.

Thank you for being willing to agree to disagree. Not everyone is ready for this, but, the more we separate rights from beliefs the more people will be able to make this transition.

 

[edwardsfire]

No, sorry, "marriage" is a legal term.



Actually, MANY churches believe that the legal exclusion of same-sex unions is wrong and contradictory to the teachings of Christianity. I am legally married, but, before the laws became equal my church had been marrying same-sex couples for 12 years.

Also, the first country in the world to make a modern law in favour of equal marriage was Spain--a deeply catholic country where the church has a lot of political power.



Others have already given you a lot of examples of why "separate but equal" is not actually equal. But, are you seriously saying that my decision to live life the way God has called me to live, to marry, making a lifetime commitment to family, to attend church, to work, pay taxes, etc. is a LIFESTYLE worthy of discrimination?????

I feel sorry for your brother and hope that you are reading some of the information people have given you.

Tolerance is a two way street. For YOU to say you "feel sorry" for my brother is a low blow and inappropriate.
Just because me or anyone else is opposed to Gay Marraige does NOT mean I/we support discrimination. There IS such a thing as personal moral veiws.
We may disagree, and thats OK and a good thing in the Nation.
but you cant change the hearts and minds of people by being INtolerant yourself.
I DONT condone ANY form of any discrimination. I do believe you made a choice as to how you live. I DID. We all make choices.
In any case, We can disagree or agree on a given subject. that makes the world go around. but as a previous poster stated "we dont have to agree 100% or we are enimies. We can disagree and still be civil.
If anyone wants to P.M. me to continue debate. I dont wish to add anymore to this thread. Its just not the proper place or topic.