BlackAgendaReport on Obama's Stance

**Dapper_Fellow** · May 18, 2012, 5:08 AM

Blackagendareport.com lays down the best take on Obama's stance on gay marriage that I have yet read.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/obamas-no-risk-drive-gay-marriage

**void()** · May 18, 2012, 6:48 AM

I agree with the view presented in the article.

**æonpax** · May 18, 2012, 9:06 AM

Excellent opinion piece. Without a doubt, it expresses, most convincingly, that President Obama’s support of gay marriage was done for the sake of political convenience as opposed to any true belief he espouses. Problem here is, what politician in either party, doesn’t do the same exact thing?

As well thought out as it was, I did have a small problem with this particular paragraph (Bolded is me)

“It's just not all that good. Marriage is the overwhelming priority of well-off white gays. But the rest of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community have other pressing issues.”

The part about “well off white guys” caught me off guard. In my experience, the support of same-sex marriage in the LGBT was universally promoted and embraced. Aside that the author did cite any evidence, the facts are, more lesbians, both white and black, get married where it is legal, than gay males. (http://gaymarriage.lifetips.com/cat/...ics/index.html ) So where did this “well off white males” come from?

For starters, this article from the Huffington Post entitled “Beyond the Gay White Male: The 2012 Queer People of Color Conference” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earnes...b_1421300.html ) states;

“The LGBT community is often criticized for setting an agenda that is taken largely from a gay white male perspective. For instance, marriage equality is currently front and center, but for some same-gender-loving people of color, marriage is not necessarily a top priority. More pressing for us may be issues like HIV/AIDS, employment discrimination, homophobia being preached at the pulpit, and plain economic inequality.”

Unfortunately, like the former article, it lacks any statistics or proof of any “gay white male” conspiracy in advancing the same-sex marriage agenda. In my opinion, it sounds more like an extreme black male agenda to play the race card in an issue where the race of people involved, does not matter. I agree that while there are more pressing national issues than gay marriage, I fail to be convinced that it is overwhelmingly, a white male concern.

Checking around, I found a very plausible explanation for this alleged misinformation. An article in “Equality Matters”; “NOM Defends Race-Baiting By Blaming “Rich White Guys" ( http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201203300003 ) it came out swinging, stating;

"The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) {an anti-gay organization} has thus far largely avoided acknowledging the growing controversy over internal documents that revealed the organization’s plan to “drive a wedge between gays and blacks.” As Think Progress’s Zack Ford noted, the few words NOM has said about the controversy appeared to invoke the same kind of race-baiting that the organization was being criticized for”

In the Wisconsin, the Koch Brothers governor puppet, republican Scott Walker, went into detail about his “divide and conquer” strategy. ( http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-strategy.html ) This strategy has been adopted by the entire right wing and religious extremists against all people that stand in the way of their dystopian agenda, especially the gay community. It doesn’t take a whole lot of common sense here to see, certain black (et al) authors are playing right into the hands of these people. What better way to derail an issue than by dividing it’s members.

President’s Obama’s support of same-sex marriage is blatantly partisan and is being used as a re-election gimmick. Few will deny that. None the less, as pathetic as it is, it can be used as a springboard to further action regarding our cause so long as we recognize that the “right” will use every dirty trick in it’s book, to blunt it. This applies to well meaning but critically misinformed authors.

***pan*** · May 18, 2012, 9:29 AM

i would like to know what business the government has even considering or getting involved in matters that are personal issues, this is typical of present government to get into all areas of peoples lives. if we are truly in a free country then we do not need government involved, it should be left to the individual for marriage is an individuals choice of who they choose to spend their life with. the only reason i can think possible is a religious one so what happened to the seperation of church and state ?

**falcondfw** · May 18, 2012, 12:02 PM

Pan,
There are other issues at stake here, besides the "political points" Obama and his supporters had hoped to score and the personal issues you mentioned.

There are financial matters. Without gay marriage, if a 20 year partner dies, who gets his life insurance benefits? his social security survivor benefits? If the couple decides they want one person to work and the other stay home, how does the one who stays home get on his lover's medical insurance? If the guy left no will, who gets his estate? If he did leave a will, how easy is it for others to contest based on the fact he was living with someone of the same gender?

Then they are human issues. If there is no gay marriage, how can a gay or lesbian couple adopt a child? What kind of extra hoops do they have to jump through to accomplish this?

I am sure there are other issues that I have forgotten, but there is far more at stake that just personal issues or political points.

**æonpax** · May 19, 2012, 6:36 AM

Originally Posted by *pan*

i would like to know what business the government has even considering or getting involved in matters that are personal issues, this is typical of present government to get into all areas of peoples lives. if we are truly in a free country then we do not need government involved, it should be left to the individual for marriage is an individuals choice of who they choose to spend their life with. the only reason i can think possible is a religious one so what happened to the seperation of church and state ?

`
Marriage is both secular and religious. Marriage requires a person(s) purchase a license provided by the state before it is legally recognized. The religious ceremony alone, is not legal. Because there are many fiduciary (and social) benefits provided by the state to married couples, the state feels it has a compelling reason to involve itself at least on a legal and financial level.

Marriage is also a “legal contract” which again, involves state laws. When one or two of the parties wish to break the contract, they must go to a civil court. A religious annulment is not legally recognized in order to nullify a legal contractual agreement.

State involvement in marriages has a long history to it going back to the “Code of Hammurabi” where in Babylon, married couples (hetero) had to register because women at the time were considered property and thereby, taxable.

Recently, on “The View”, President Obama clarified his stance stating that marriage (including same sex) is not historically, a matter the federal government has dealt with so it’s up to the states. Romney, on the other hand, wants to propose an amendment to the US constitution defining marriage between a man and woman only, which would outlaw same sex marriages. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1518366.html )

**elian** · May 19, 2012, 7:50 AM

What I heard the president say was that after considering the facts, his experience and talking with his wife he now thinks that same sex marriage should be allowed. He never said anything about making law or speaking for the country. To me it seemed like he was talking about his own personal beliefs. We all know that politicians love power so much that they will say almost anything to gain public favor.

If it was all about votes you would think he wouldn't want to piss off so many conservatives by openly declaring his support for something the most fanatical of them don't agree with. Of course maybe he figures he's not going to get their vote anyway..

The interesting thing to me is that whether he was sincere or not is irrelevant, he said it, and when the President of the United States says something people listen.

As was said, there is a civil/secular aspect to marriage and a sacred aspect to marriage. Due to the separation of church and state and my own personal beliefs I would never FORCE a religious institution to perform a marriage ceremony through legislation but I am absolutely in favor of equal civil treatment under the law whether that's a straight couple or same sex couple.

One would say why is government even involved in promoting the civil rights of partners, but apparently policy makers believe that having marriages is in the best interest of the state because it assumes that people will be able to pool resources and be more stable. So the fight is to convince people that the same right should be extended to same sex partners as well. Some people have a hard time because they view same sex partnership as less moral.

People struggling with a gender/sexual identity where everything in society tells them they are "wrong" can have a much harder time with self image but I'm not ready to draw a parallel between that and unstable partnerships or morality. I think that straight marriages can be just as "unstable".

My fav was the one senator who said "Ok,well if you think marriage is so sacred, I'm going to draft a bill to make DIVORCE illegal." That shut up the debate from a lot of politicians real quick.

Oh and those same policymakers must seem to think it's a good idea for most people to own homes in segregated neighborhoods as well since they structured the housing laws to favor the majority class.