Obama to fire gay military officer. Martinus pops vein.

[grumbler]

Of course, one wonders. More unpopular than talking with Chavez and closing Guantanamo?

I'd say it leans much more towards 3.

I agree.  I am willing to bet, in fact, that Obama is instinctively much less tolerant of gays than he is intellectually.  The "black cultures" in the US are not renowned for their tolerance of homosexuality.

[Faeelin]

Of course, one wonders. More unpopular than talking with Chavez and closing Guantanamo?

I'd say it leans much more towards 3.

I agree.  I am willing to bet, in fact, that Obama is instinctively much less tolerant of gays than he is intellectually.  The "black cultures" in the US are not renowned for their tolerance of homosexuality.

RACIST! I'm not sure it's so much Obama's own inclinations so much as the fact that his biggest base of support is black voters. But yes, there isn't much evidence to argue against that he's homophobic.

[DontSayBanana]

RACIST! I'm not sure it's so much Obama's own inclinations so much as the fact that his biggest base of support is black voters. But yes, there isn't much evidence to argue against that he's homophobic.

Actually, Obama has stated that as a Christian, he is against gay marriages, but is trying to keep a Chinese wall between the religious definition and the equal treatment issue, so there may be some merit to grumbler's argument.

[Valmy]

Obama has stated that as a Christian, he is against gay marriages,

Plenty of Christian churches marry Gay people so I do not see how one means the other.

[Faeelin]

Obama has stated that as a Christian, he is against gay marriages,

Plenty of Christian churches marry Gay people so I do not see how one means the other.

Indeed, the United Church of Christ, which he attended while in Chicago, explicitly endorses gay marriage.

[The Brain]

GOD DAMN AMERICA

[MadImmortalMan]

Indeed, the United Church of Christ, which he attended while in Chicago, explicitly endorses gay marriage.

It could be argued, then, that any law passed that bans gay marriage is state interference in that church's religious practice, and thus a violation of the first amendment.

[Neil]

Indeed, the United Church of Christ, which he attended while in Chicago, explicitly endorses gay marriage.

It could be argued, then, that any law passed that bans gay marriage is state interference in that church's religious practice, and thus a violation of the first amendment.

Only by an idiot.

[Faeelin]

Indeed, the United Church of Christ, which he attended while in Chicago, explicitly endorses gay marriage.

It could be argued, then, that any law passed that bans gay marriage is state interference in that church's religious practice, and thus a violation of the first amendment.

Oddly, this never comes up in same-sex marriage debates, but yes, this is pretty clearly the state refusing to give a civil right to groups based on the religious beliefs of some groups over another.

I'm not sure how strong the argument is; would we recognize polygamy? But since the main argument against recognizing gay and lesbian families is "My God hates them," it seems pretty weird that everyone is okay with this.

[Berkut]

Polygamy is not really the same though, even if it is commonly trotted out as a counter slippery slope argument.

Anytime the state restricts an individual liberty, it should be based on some compelling need to do so for the greater good of society. There are reasons beyond "My religion is against it" for banning polygamy. Personally, I think those reasons are not really suficient, but others think they are, so I can accept that as a society we have decided that polygamy is unacceptable.

Nobody has managed to credibly come up with a public good argument for banning gay marriage, with the exception of Martinus. And I don't think it is right to punish all homos for Marty's behavior.

[Neil]

Marriage isn't a liberty.

At any rate, the social utility of crushing those who agitate against society is worth it.

[The Brain]

How is polygamy slippery slope?

[derspiess]

I'm not sure how strong the argument is; would we recognize polygamy? But since the main argument against recognizing gay and lesbian families is "My God hates them," it seems pretty weird that everyone is okay with this.

Meanwhile, the main argument *for* making this rather significant social change is that "you're a big meanie if you're not for it". 

NO SALE

[Berkut]

I'm not sure how strong the argument is; would we recognize polygamy? But since the main argument against recognizing gay and lesbian families is "My God hates them," it seems pretty weird that everyone is okay with this.

Meanwhile, the main argument *for* making this rather significant social change is that "you're a big meanie if you're not for it". 

NO SALE

No, the main argument is that absent any compelling harm, the state should let people do what they like.

Are you really trying to tell us that your opposition to gay marriage is based on simply not liking the way gay people have asked to be allowed to marry?

[Faeelin]

Meanwhile, the main argument *for* making this rather significant social change is that "you're a big meanie if you're not for it". 

NO SALE

Uh, what?

It's pretty simple. If we as a society value families, then it seems ridiculous to say that gay and lesbian ones aren't entitled to the same protections as the rest of them.  It's also not clear how it's a significant social change, since it's not like gays and lesbians aren't settling down and raising children, and, according to almost every study on it, doing about as well as straight couples.