Obama: Homosexuality is not a choice
Posted on: October 14, 2010 - 8:59pm
Offline
Obama: Homosexuality is not a choice
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/14/obama.homosexuality/index.html?iref=allsearch
Quote:
Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama said Thursday that he believes homosexuality is not a choice, but the result of people being born with "a certain make-up."
Asked directly if gay or transgender people have a choice or are born that way, Obama told a town-hall style event with students that he was no expert, then added: "I don't think it's a choice. I think people are born with a certain make-up."
"We're all children of God," Obama said. "We don't make determinations about who we love. That's why I think discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong."
- Login to post comments
great, now itd be super if he came around to the position that gays can marry, none of this "civil union" bullshit
or maybe itd be great if he wasnt trying to stop the injunction against DADT with some BS excuse
Notice how he only commented on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That's already been overturned in Romer v. Evans (1996) because it violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. His agreement with that decision changes nothing. What he really needs to do is establish his position on same-sex marriage, "don't ask, don't tell", immigration issues with same-sex couples and families, bullying of LGBT students, and other more relevant issues.
"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972
Well, I would really like to put him on the spot over this one. Not over the usual crop of questions that tend to come up...
...but over ones that show how the existing laws have created some problems which have not been foreseen.
Here is one:
A gay man from a nation where gay marriage is no big deal comes to, say, Connecticut where gay marriage is no big deal. He then marries a gay natural born citizen. Under federal law that predates DOMA by many decades, the federal govt. must grant US citizenship unless they can show that the marriage was done for the purpose of gaining entry into the US. Pretty much, this should be a done deal.
Then the happy couple moves to one of those states where the state constitution has been amended to block gay marriage. What is the legal status of the happy couple?
This becomes important because the federal govt. has granted formal recognition to the marriage despite DOMA. However, there is a much larger issue at hand. This creates a very specific tension between the tenth amendment (state's rights) and the fourteenth amendment (the equal protection clause).
I don't think that SCOTUS really wants to take a crap on either of them.
=
Doesn't DOMA violate Article IV, Sections 1 and 2 (the "full faith and credit" and "privileges and immunities" clauses) of the Constitution?
"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972
I see where you are going. In general, I tend to think that you have a case. The only thing is that both of your points exist as worded in a weaker manner that leaves a larger opening for judicial interpretation.
If/as/when such a case gets to SCOTUS, they can form part of an argument. However, if one is going to pick the battles that are easier to win, then the possible clash between the tenth and fourteenth amendments is possibly the better case to work.
Consider strategy here. This case is probably ten years away. We don't know what the makeup of SCOTUS will be then, apart from it being probably still being the Roberts court. Give them two things where they can't really take a steaming dump on either and they will be disposed to a limited number of options.
=
You get the feeling if he could ignore interest groups and run the country his own way things would work out for the better.
It's funny that in Australia about 60 per cent of folks support gay marriage - the figure goes up about 5 per cent every 5 years.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Well, one of these days, we are gonna get past the idea of gay marriage and just have marriage.
Honestly, I have more important things to do than thinking about what other people do with their privates. Thinking about how to get my privates a bit more action seems to be fairly important.
Don't get me wrong, thinking about Angelina Jolie's privates has some merit but that will not get me any action. Neither will worrying about what Neil and Bob have going on.
=
Sorry not to finish that post...went out last night and am not right in the head.
The funny part about those figures here is that despite a majority of support, gay marriage is such a political hot potato.
You'd think if a majority think it's a non issue then government could just pull its thumb out of its arse. But nope.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I agree with much of the posts on this one. I personally do not think it is the business of the government to worry about what people do in their bedrooms. Me personally, I work with people who are gay, I have dealt with people who are gay, it just doesn't seem like any real reason for it to be such a HUGE issue.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Full of hot air, this prez is...
edit1; could it be that he's simply trying to rally re-election support with approval ratings so damn low after a measly year and a half?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)