Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Why you shouldn't vote for Barack Obama

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with fullequality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the bestway to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should notstand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay andlesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)– a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repealonly part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should notdiscriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. Ihave also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the UnitingAmerican Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations asmarried couples in our immigration system.

13 comments:

jacob said...

Hillary still scares me more.

Rica said...

Nothing wrong with homosexual couples being able to have the same right that everyone else does. I may disagree about DOMA, but I agree with civil unions.

Janae Bailey said...

I had no idea he had such a straight-forward approach on that. I can't help but think he would be better than McCain though...but that's hard to overlook. Let's just make sure the idea of having Hilary as President and Obama as VP DOESN'T happen ok?

Russtafarian said...

Rica...

OK...let's think about the practical implications of this. We would be saying that the idea of a homosexual union carries the same weight to a heterosexual relationship. That includes welfare benefits, pension plans, medical benefits (Medicaid, Medicare), tax breaks. Huge expenditures. Adoptions would be blown wide open to gay couples. Our schools would be REQUIRED to start teaching "civil unions" as a legitimate alternative to marriage.

Essentially, we would be mocking our own procreative powers--and with state sanction. Does a person have a right to be homosexual in this country? Can citizens participate in destructive behaviors w/o being prosecuted? Of course...but then again, a person has also has a right to look at pornography, to have sex outside of marriage, to never even marry at all. Doesn't mean we should give them tax breaks for it.

Rica said...

Russ,

Since when have schools taught about MARRIAGE in the first place?

No need for those who have tendencies to homosexuality to be punished for something that may legitimately be in their genes.

Russtafarian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Russtafarian said...

bermudasorella: I cannot remember a single children's book or lesson in school that had anything to do with marriage
1:12 PM me: Cinderella
simple
bermudasorella: Because she gets with the handsome prince in the end?
That doesn't mean marriage.
me: yup
it means heterosexuality
bermudasorella: Which is the norm.
It doesn't mean Cinderella is going to be rewritten so she ends up with a beautiful princess.
me: but the lobby won't let it be if civil unions are legitimized by the state
1:13 PM there will be a homosexual version...after all, the school is an agent of the state
bermudasorella: Cinderella isn't published by the state.
Russ, that's ridiculous.
me: and the state can't have its own schools undermining policy
Boy Scouts have been kicked out of schools b/c of their anti-homosexual policies
1:14 PM Cinderella isn't published by the state...
but the school would have to provide meaningful representation for its homosexual students
bermudasorella: You're blowing this out of proportion.
1:15 PM Nothing would necessarily change.
So suddenly there would be GSAs.
Big deal.
Nothing was different in my school.
Or Emily's for that matter.
me: did they allow civil unions where you came from?
bermudasorella: San Francisco made them legal.
1:16 PM me: did you go to a SF school?
bermudasorella: I went to a school 45 minutes away. And SF schools were no different.
I had teachers who were homosexual.
Big. Freaking. Deal.
me: I just know that it has happened
bermudasorella: I've never seen it.
me: of course, it hasn't been widespread yet
1:17 PM bermudasorella: And I grew up in one of the most liberal places in the US.
me: Cali. still doesn't allow it as a policy
bermudasorella: It didn't happen in my school, never heard about it from others.
me: once it becomes legal, it crosses the threshold
bermudasorella: That is sensationalism that stops people from being treated equally.
me: and they shouldn't be treated equally
bermudasorella: Why not?
me: should we give people tax breaks for having alcoholism in their genes?
1:18 PM bermudasorella: We don't give people tax breaks for not being alcholics.
alcoholics*
me: or for drinking alcohol?
bermudasorella: This is in no way related to alcoholism or any other bs thing.
me: it's genetic
and we all view it as negative
bermudasorella: By not allowing someone to get married, simply because they are attracted to the same sex is ludicrous.
me: marriage implies rights
bermudasorella: There is NOTHING wrong with them.
me: adoption rights
bermudasorella: And they deserve rights.
Why not?
1:19 PM me: do we want to support male/female role models or not?
the symbolism here is HUGE
bermudasorella: I may not agree with what they practice and believe, but I think they should be given equal rights.
me: but it's negative for society
you know it is
bermudasorella: It didn't negatively affect me to have friends who were homosexual.
Or athiest.
Or buddhist.
Or jewish.
1:20 PM Or anything else that isn't a cookie cutter mold.
me: it's a symbolic gesture
bermudasorella: You don't have to be a WASP to be a good person.
me: nor do I think that...now YOU'RE being sensationalist
bermudasorella: Who in their right mind would choose to be homosexual?
All of my friends who have been have said that they would never choose that life.
me: I agree...there's probably genetics involved
bermudasorella: So why should they be punished for it?
1:21 PM me: should we give tax breaks to those w/genetic disorders? provide them a place to where they can publicly display their genetic disorder? in fact, say that their genetic disorder equal to those without it?
1:22 PM of course not
we support them
we love them
we try to help them
1:23 PM bermudasorella: This is not a genetic disorder like alcoholism, gambling, etc.
me: and your basis for that?
bermudasorella: You can't lump it in with those types of things.
If tax breaks are given to those in heterosexual marriages.
me: which they are...
bermudasorella: The same should be done for those in homosexual marriages.
It's called equality.
me: why?
heterosexual marriages actually promote the propagation of the species
bermudasorella: Are you kidding me?
1:24 PM Are you seriously joking?
me: we do not treat behaviors equally that undermine the purposes of the state
bermudasorella: I'm speechless right now.
me: can people be homosexual? absolutely
every right to be
(we're still friends, right? :)
bermudasorella: UGH
1:25 PM Yes. But I'm about ready to rawr at you
me: I can handle
that
as long as we're still friends :)
bermudasorella: Because that's just a ridiculous statement
haha
me: prove it :)
bermudasorella: ...
me: how is it ridiculuous
bermudasorella: RUSSELL STEVENSON
me: give me evidence
bermudasorella: Civil rights.
This type of discussion went on before the civil rights movement
1:26 PM me: except that we weren't talking about a condition that undermines the purposes of society
bermudasorella: To some, we were.
me: the color of the skin is a condition, not a practice
bermudasorella: Just like to some, civil unions would.
Homosexuality could be considered a condition too
It's genetic, just like race.
me: AND a practice
bermudasorella: OH
1:27 PM me: if you have tendencies and even engage in homosexual practices, I totally support you as a full-fledged member of society in every other way
bermudasorella: Then why not support their right to get married?
me: ways that do not undermine society's ability to promote its own species
bermudasorella: Why make it so they have to live "out of wedlock", not by choice?
1:28 PM me: b/c we don't want to legitimize it
do you want to legitimize it?
bermudasorella: I see no problem with it.
It's fair treatment.
me: so you're saying that this way of life is equal to heterosexuality?
that you want children raised in homosexual foster homes?
bermudasorella: I don't think that they really have a choice.
1:29 PM me: but they do
there are MANY members of the church who have tendencies
bermudasorella: And I don't think they should have to be unhappy for the rest of their lives because they're not allowed to get married.
me: but they do not act on them
bermudasorella: Would you want to be alone for the rest of your life Russ?
me: is it the state's job to make sure that every man, woman, and child's actions are legitimized?
1:30 PM bermudasorella: Would you want to live the rest of your life alone?
me: should we legitimize burning the flag?
bermudasorella: It is legitimized.
Done deal.
me: I wouldn't expect the state to ensure my happiness
especially at it's own expense
bermudasorella: You wouldn't want to live the rest of your life alone.
So why should you expect others to do that?
me: what I want and what the state wants...totally different things
1:31 PM bermudasorella: The state legitimizes marriage. It should legitimize it for all.
me: if I choose to live alone, that has nothing to do with state policy
why?
homosexual marriage undermines procreation
undermines the state's claim to propagating the species
1:32 PM bermudasorella: The state does not sustain itself solely to propagate the species.
me: but it certainly shouldn't be working against it
it shouldn't give tax breaks for birth control
bermudasorella: It isn't working against it by legitimizing civil unions
me: by Obama's plan, civil unions would have every benefit of marriage
bermudasorella: As they should.
me: so civil unions=marriage
1:33 PM they become blended together
do you want children being raised by homosexual parents paid for by your tax dollar?
(terrible passive voice there)
do you want homosexual parents raising children with your tax dollar?
there
better
1:34 PM bermudasorella: what's wrong with it?
me: well, it undermines the belief that men and women are complementary
first of all
1:35 PM bermudasorella: no it doesn't.
me: hmmm...how so?
we're suggesting that a woman or a man in the home is not needed as a role model
bermudasorella: just because a child is raised by a homosexual family does not mean that they themselves will be homosexual.
in fact, most aren't.
me: but we're still sending a message
that man does not need woman
nor does woman need man
bermudasorella: Do I want my child raised witn a father and a mother? yes.
But if a child can have a loving family in a homosexual household, why not?
1:36 PM me: but it will be imbalanced
love is not enough
bermudasorella: It won't be imbalanced.
Is it imbalanced for a child to be raised in a single parent family?
me: yes
bermudasorella: Is it imbalnced for a child to be raised in a blended family?
1:37 PM me: meaning with a step-parent?
bermudasorella: Ye.
Yes*
me: no
both role models are there
bermudasorella: Not always.
me: but the structure is there
bermudasorella: What about being raised by parents in separate homes after divorce?
1:38 PM me: imbalanced
should we give it a tax break?
no
Emily is divorced...and she'll be the first to tell you that custody is h---
*custody battles are
bermudasorella: So why is it not a problem to be raised in separate households, but it is for them to be raised by one sex?
me: so yes...I am not saying we outlaw less than ideal family situations
I'm just saying that we don't legitimize them on a national level
bermudasorella: So why outlaw homosexual family situations?
Granted, they are less than ideal
I will agree with you there.
me: yes
bermudasorella: But I don't see why they should be outlawed or disallowed
1:41 PM me: so I see no reason to reward them
let them be homosexual...let them even have property exchange rates
hospital rights
bermudasorella: if they're married, i see no reason why they shouldn't get the benefits of a marriage.
me: ??
bermudasorella: And by the way....are you sure that there are actually tax breaks for marriage?
1:42 PM me: do we legitimize heterosexual couples just b/c they live together?
yes
bermudasorella: Because I swear, the reason there are more people living together and not getting married is because there are not tax breaks....but rather you pay more.;
me: the 2003 tax act ended the marriage tax
bermudasorella: Ah.
K
1:43 PM Thanks for clarifying that
me: no worries
here's how it worked
1:44 PM before, folks would file taxes separately
but they STILL got a deduction if they were married
it was just less than if they filed separately
bermudasorella: Hey....I"ve gotta start working on a story for tomorrow's paper, so I've gotta run.
me: good luck
peace
1:45 PM bermudasorella: Bye

Council Bluffs said...

Wow! If we legitimize gay marriage, then why not legitimize marriage with animals, or 4 people in a marriage, or polygamy?

Council Bluffs said...

I'm off to CB kids, but please continue to use my blahg as a forum. This is good to get it out, and you both have good points.

Rica said...

haha Russ...I can't believe you put the entire debate up here! That's awesome!

And it was good debating you today, as frustrating as it can be. It's been a while since I've done that. =)

Anonymous said...

Did you know that Maine just passed an amendment/law that says: If you "think" you might be gay then you have the right to use a restroom of the opposite sex. If you are male (even if you haven't gone through a sex change operation) you can shower in the women's locker room; and no one has the right to question you and what you are doing because that ...would be considered a hate crime.

This would include school locker rooms, public restrooms, you name it. Regardless of the gay issue ...this blows the doors wide open for rapists and pedophiles or even curious teenagers to invade the privacy of the opposite sex. Crazy world.

Lauren said...

Is that Maine law true? Can someone find me a link?

Anonymous said...

Kasey, you need to cite sources. Stop being lazy. how do we know Obama even said this- you probably got it in some random email from somewhere. Stop playing the republican fear game. The Power of Nightmares is real...

Be sure to check out Becca's Blog