For retribution for all of their interfering in politics. For their bs tax excemption/audit exceptions while collecting billions of dollars. We'd be better off. They'd stop targeting kids, women, and gays for abuse.

"For retribution for all of their interfering in politics."

That's good enough reason to throw the First Amendment out with the bathwater?

It's one thing to pass some kind of law reining in some of the more questionable things they do, maybe even taking a second glance at their easy tax-free status. But specifically targeting them is exactly, and I do mean *exactly* the kind of thing the First Amendment was written to prevent.

Obama only did this because Biden opened his big mouth and came out in support of gay marriage this week. He would have been perfectly fine staying ambiguous about it before the election in order to keep his constituent groups happy (gays knowing he really does support it, blacks and whatever blue collar whites still vote Democratic thinking he'll do nothing about it). With Biden's declaration Obama had to come out in support of it or look like a fool.

Interestingly, Obama still hasn't come out in support of a federal move for gay marriage, but rather that the states should decide and he thinks they should let gays marry. This happens to be my position, at least with regards to the process. Abortion still divides up because it was imposed by the Supreme Court everywhere, even though many states were already legalizing it. Wait a few years and you'll have gay marriage everywhere as a result of the democratic process. It may not be the most ideologically pure way to do it, but it will ultimately be the least divisive and best for the country. I know this looks silly in light of North Carolina's vote, but the thing about constitutions is that they can be changed.

" I know this looks silly in light of North Carolina's vote"

Yes, as well as the rest of the south. Oh well, it's not you whose rights are violated, so I guess they can "wait it out".

"That's good enough reason to throw the First Amendment out with the bathwater? "

When has the First Amendment ever mattered for atheists? You realize a dozen or so states prohibit atheists from even holding public office?

The first amendment has always been a joke.

"But specifically targeting them is exactly, and I do mean *exactly* the kind of thing the First Amendment was written to prevent."

Do you forget Putin33 is a communist? And not a friendly, Slavoj Žižek-type but a Stalinist? It would be more shocking (and less philosophically consistent) for him to think anything else.

Zizek! LOL. You realize Zizek considers himself a 'Stalinist' (which is silly, the fool is a reactionary)? No, of course not, you shoot from the hip, as usual.

http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/zizek-and-stalin.jpg

But it is a Federal issue. After all, it's a matter of civil rights and the Federal government is responsible for guaranteeing that *everyone* is treated equally. I dare say that gay rights is *more* a Federal issue than abortion. "Abortion = murder" (whether you agree with it or not) still coems down to a state issue as there are no Federal statutes against individual murder. But the rights of the individual guaranteeing equality for all (i.e. civil rights) is a Federal issue guaranteed in the Constitution.

It's actually funny how the Consitutionalists tend to vote with the extreme right (against gay rights), when the Constitution actually guarantees those rights.

"Yes, as well as the rest of the south. Oh well, it's not you whose rights are violated, so I guess they can "wait it out"."

Better to wait a few years and have the issue settled in a way everyone can ultimately live with than have another divisive issue like abortion that hurts the country indefinitely.


"The first amendment has always been a joke."

Yeah, prohibiting an established religion, protecting the free exercise of religion, protecting freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and association are such irrelevant things. Of all the amendments to hold in disdain, why the First?

"You realize Zizek considers himself a 'Stalinist'"

Not from what I've seen and read, but I wouldn't take him for the consistent type. In fact, he goes on at length in a Charlie Rose interview on how Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union was on of the worst things that ever happened in history. It's on you-tube.

But let's not hijack the thread.

"Of all the amendments to hold in disdain, why the First?"

Because it's never been real. It's never existed in any meaningful way. Within minutes we had the Alien & Sedition Acts. We've had multiple round-ups of communists. We've had multiple assassination campaigns against any remotely 'radical' group. We continue to have infiltrations of peace activists. It's meaningless except for people like you who benefit from the system and are an unapologetic advocate for the state.

"But it is a Federal issue. After all, it's a matter of civil rights and the Federal government is responsible for guaranteeing that *everyone* is treated equally."

I'm not talking about what might be right ideologically or even legally, but what would be most effective strategically. If gay marriage is passed by a legislature (like in New York) no one can complain since it's the end result of the democratic process.

A few years, yeah, because the deep south and plains states are going to roll out the red carpet for LGBTQ people by 2020.

A dozen or so states, Putin? Please specifically list more than 10 if you would please. I hapopen to know you can't because it is exactly 7 that still have that crap on the books. So "a dozen or so" is bullshit. And don't try to up it to 8 with Pennsylvania because the text makes it clear that no person who believes can be diqualified on that basis, but says nothing whatsoever either way about one who does *not* believe.

So, 7 states is "a dozen or so". And your lovers all believe that 7 inches equal a foot, I suppose.

Looks at how different things are from just 10 years ago. Who knows what'll happen by 2020.

It's either that or pushing it before everyone's ready for it. It may be the "right" thing, but it will create another issue like abortion which will divide the country. If you want a society which accepts gay marriage it has to happen through the legislature. Virtually everyone under thirty is either for it or doesn't care. This will happen.

@Invictus - If a federal law is enacted or, better yet, a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing gays equal protection under the law (I'd prefer the term marriage be removed from Federal "books" but barring that, they should get to use the word marriage as the church doesn't own it), then the people would have spoken. A law has to go through Congress - a Congress elected by the people to represent the people; and a Consitutional amendment has to be ratified by the States going through their Congresses, also elected by the people to represent the people.

Oh please, Putin. Perhaps it doesn't work perfectly, perhaps it never can as long as there are religions, but God's sake can you imagine the sorry state this country would be in without it?

You might have seen a religious civil war, or even a theocracy. You might literally see religious persecution, the real kind, not the trumped up social persecution first-world Christians experience today.

I care about the first amendment as an agnostic a lot. A whole lot. Two reasons:

1) I believe nobody knows the truth about religion. Therefore, it would insane as well as facetious for the state to take a position.
2) Agnostics aren't exactly a well-liked or numerous bunch. Without the first amendment I could be subject to very real problems.

Anyway, back to LGBT issues. Perhaps this won't be totally behind us in 2020 or 2030 or whatever. But then again, race still isn't behind us. The point is though that there is a kind of tipping point where you may still have large numbers of bigoted-like people, but the majority is squarely in favor of civil rights for a certain group. At that point the law changes, the bigots are rightly labelled bigots, and they go into a sort of hiding and then you get second-wave bigotry much later after complacency sets in, which you see now with race.

But since a big majority of:

1) young people
2) city people
3) educated people

are in favor of gay marriage, it's hard to see how this isn't going to become law in the near future, since all three of those groups are only going to become more influential and numerous, not less.

A law can pass nationally without the support of wide swaths of the country. Would a national law really mean the people have spoken if every Southern Senator and Congressman votes against it? That creates exactly the division I'm talking about.

It will pass in every state in time. People who really care about this should not waste their time at the federal level but go to their statehouse and push for change.

"This will happen."

Yeah, because we should trust the same people who needed a judicial decision striking down sodomy laws and who want to turn back the clock 60 years on contraception with being prompt about giving people their due rights.

why gay marriage should be a federal matter is beyond me...it's really one of the issues which can be decided capably by the states. and to argue that the gay marriage fight is the equivalent of the civil rights battles of the 50s and 60s is really ridiculous...gays don't suffer anything close to the oppression of blacks in those periods (and the preceding decades). personally I would prefer for the state to refrain from recognizing marriage at all...it avoids issues such as the gay marriage controversy.

"It will pass in every state in time. People who really care about this should not waste their time at the federal level but go to their statehouse and push for change. "

The same argument was made regarding Civil Rights. But you make an assumption about the future that may or may not be true. I suspect (but there is no proof one way or the other) that had the Federal Government not stepped in, there would still be segregation in the south and I suspect that the Bible belt states would never pass laws that give alternative relationships marriage rights. We've already seen states viewed as gay-friendly (California anyone?) put proposition on the ballot and attempt to pass Constitutional amendments to *deny* gay marriage. How long before a traditionally anti-gay state succeeds in getting an amendment passed?

Invictus - Zizek has called for Stalinism, not in the sense of supporting the specific things that Stalin did, but in the sense of taking command of situations and acting to impose an ideological vision, which he describes as the essential move of ethics and politics. A more familiar example could be the Bush administration's "we create reality" angle. If I recall correctly his argument is something along the lines of "if we wait, as some people would, for the right moment or the right conditions, we'll always find ourselves blocked by uncertainty - you've got to just cut across the ambiguities and uncertainties and take action."

Didn't you know that Invictus was an Oracle? He always makes these bold declarations about what the future will be.

"why gay marriage should be a federal matter is beyond me...i"

Because marriage involves a litany of federal protections and entitlements.

"personally I would prefer for the state to refrain from recognizing marriage at all...it avoids issues such as the gay marriage controversy."

Then prepare to rewrite a long list of laws because you want to pander to the most backward of our states.

It's odd that this is news. The most shocking part of it is that this hasn't already been done. God damn backwards country.

".gays don't suffer anything close to the oppression of blacks in those periods"

perhaps not. But they suffer discrimination all the same, and the movement bears serious similarities. I've never been a fan of the idea that you can't compare two things just because they're different. All comparisons are by nature just pointing out similarities - they never imply the two are the same, because that's never true.

Anyway, the reason you might say LGBT discrimination issues should be federal is that it could be considered a human rights issue, which is ultimately the national government's responsibility to uphold, or face (hopefully) ultimate justice internationally.

"gays don't suffer anything close to the oppression of blacks in those periods (and the preceding decades)."

Really? Now the Federal government should only step in if some litmus test determines a level of severity? Who is to be that litmus test? No, equal protection is equal protection and it is the Federal government's responsibility to guarantee that protection.

Quick: Which country has a person as its head of government who is a Christian fundamentalist that belongs to an avowedly homophobic & misogynistic church.

1 - USA
2 - Canada

+1 Nardraug

I tend to regard discrimination against gays as something which will always exist as long as homosexuality and heterosexuality exist side-by-side. There's really not much that can be done by the government about individual discrimination against gays.

And in terms of the matters the government can do something about, there totally is a difference between the 1960s civil rights movement and the current gay rights movement. In the 1960s the government was directly intervening to segregate blacks and whites (at least in some states)---currently, the issue about gay marriage is a case of the government *not* doing something. And to be honest, I simply don't believe that a lack of legislation authorizing gay marriage constitutes discrimination justifying federal intervention for "human rights" or "equal protection."

And Putin did point out a very legitimate criticism of my advice that the state should withdraw itself from the marriage business entirely. The amount of governmental aid, entitlements, and tax exemptions, etc. only given to governmentally sanctioned "marriages" certainly poses a problem for marriage privatization. It's a complex issue.