Two Oregon County-Level Judges Stop Performing Marriages, Citing Personal Conscience

Katherine Krueger at TPM sketches the story.

Judge Vance Day

Judge Thomas Kohl

In the judges' defense, some are pointing out that Oregon permits, but does not require, judges to perform marriages. To that, I can only say that such a state law would allow such judges to remain silent on the subject, but not to announce a policy of refusing to perform marriages, their announcements coming specifically in response to the legalizing of same-sex marriages. If a judge has the power to perform a marriage and ceases to exercise that power directly in response to the now legally required institution of gay marriage, that judge should resign his/her office or prepare to be jailed in contempt.

When judges begin playing legal tricks to avoid the clear intent of a Supreme Court decision, they no longer serve their rightful purpose. That has been true when I've disagreed with the Court's decision, and it must in turn be true when I happen to agree with the SCOTUS decision.

Otherwise... we have no justice. Those among us who are unwilling to see justice subverted to the religious purposes of individuals must draw the line RIGHT HERE.

(The usual warning: IANAL.)

Kim Davis For GOP Presidential Nominee

This gal is in and out of jail faster than a two-dollar... ah, never mind; it's not her sexual behavior that I take issue with but rather her willingness, indeed, eagerness to ignore her (presumed) oath of office. I doubt seriously she herself thought of doing that: someone put her up to it, I'm certain. It's a stunt. No, I said "stunt": 's', 't', 'u' ...

Putting aside her willful default of a significant duty of her office, or perhaps in light of that dereliction, she could be the perfect GOP presidential candidate:

• She believes her religion always, in all circumstances, trumps all other considerations in decision-making.
• She doesn't think rules... nay, laws... apply to her as they apply to other people.
• She has found a way to use her criminal nonfeasance to her political advantage with constituents who apparently actually appreciate her family's resemblance to the Clampett family:
  
  
  
  
  
• And she wants to have it both ways: to substitute her personal judgment for that of a federal judge, but nonetheless suffer no legal consequences.

As I said... she's the perfect Repub presidential candidate. The GOPers seem to be having difficulty picking a candidate; maybe they should consider... nah. I forgot: no Republican president will ever be a... woman.

RWNJ Kentucky County Clerk Ordered Jailed For Contempt Of Court Over Refusal To Issue Gay Marriage Licenses

Katherine Krueger and Tierney Sneed at TPM:

Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses, has been found in contempt of court and taken into federal custody.

According to AP, U.S. District Judge David Bunning said Thursday that Davis would be held in jail until she complied with the previous court orders to begin granting the marriage licenses.

...

And thus it must be in a society where the rule of law prevails over the rule of wo/man. If people start choosing which judges' orders they obey and which they do not, the required balance between freedom and order in society will quickly collapse in favor of wanton freedom, and the laws of the land will become utterly unenforceable.

Someone could do Kim Davis a favor by explaining the workings of civil disobedience to her: the person engaging in civil disobedience expects to go to jail for what s/he does; it cannot be otherwise, because s/he is violating the law. If Ms. Davis wants to decide in her own mind what the law means and act accordingly, but not be jailed for her lawbreaking, then she is asserting that she is some kind of queen, or at least a princess: not in America, baby, not in America.

Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz had some interesting things to say in Krueger and Sneed's article (which you really should read before proceeding)...

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) also rushed to Davis' defense: "I think it’s absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberties," he said on CNN.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) issued a statement calling for "every lover of liberty to stand for Kim Davis." “Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so," he said.

(Sigh! the RWNJs always require explanation of the simplest matters of rights and responsibilities.)

Sen. Paul, it's not for exercising her religious liberties that Davis is being jailed: those are liberties of belief and expression, not of action in contravention to the law, especially as in this case where the law couldn't possibly be clearer after the Supreme Court's refusal to support Ms. Davis's position.

And Sen. Cruz, I am at least as American as you are, and the nation I fight for is NOT "founded on Judeo-Christian values" because though I am religious, I am not a Christian, whether you like that fact or not. And I'm pretty sure you don't, you un-American bastard.

Just for good measure, Mike Huckabee chimed in:

... former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said, "Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubts about the criminalization of Christianity in this country."

No, ex-Gov. Huckabee, it "removes all doubts about the criminalization of" criminal behavior, and most of us don't have any problem with that. Sit down and STFU!

Monday Miscellany On (Oops! Sorry!) Wednesday

• Kidnapped Abroad And Solitary Confinement: This Is What Due Process Looks Like For A Palestinian In Israel
  

  (Richard Silverstein at Shadowproof)

• Workers To Face Biosurveillance From Employers
  

  (Dan Wright at Shadowproof)

• A Texas Conservative Openly Calls For Violence Against LGBT People
  

  (Kossacks for Marriage Equality)

• The GOP’s deeply flawed field
  

  (Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation at WaPo)

• There was that time JEB! forced single mothers to post their sexual history in the newspaper...
  

  (SemDem at Kos)

• Krugman: Why All The Republican Candidates Are Attacking Social Security
  

  (Dartagnan at Kos refers to...)

• Republicans Against Retirement
  

  (Krugman at NYT)

Gay Pride Parade: The Good G*d, S/He Laughs With, Not At, Houston's LGBTQ Community

Mayor Annise Parker (D,L-Houston)
"We have come a long way since Stonewall"

Houston's annual Gay Pride Parade was moved from the Montrose-Westheimer area to downtown this year, and needless to say, a lot of participants (including some newlyweds!) were very, very happy in their procession beneath the skyscrapers of the Bayou City.

To no one's surprise, some of the city's most conservative ministers, pastors, holy fathers, call them whatever you will, expressed their displeasure with the whole business, said the gay community, along with the Supreme Court, was "defy[ing] G*d's law," and that their own "religious freedom" was being violated (WTF???) by the ruling.

Supreme Court, 6/26/2015

So one might expect the good G*d to display some pique, perhaps even rage, at the Houston LGBTQ community, eh? Here's how S/He did that:

Houston City Hall

• Right before the parade started, S/He placed a rainbow in the sky, visible from downtown Houston, and
• S/He held off the rainstorms to the north of Houston from proceeding into downtown until the formal parade was over and the revelers had mostly headed to their evening parties in the Montrose. (For those who don't know, the Montrose is the heart of the LGBTQ community in Houston [and the home of a lot of other good people, including, back in my youth, my family and me].)

That's an odd way for G*d to express overpowering anger, don't you think?

Regular people, get it? ‘Gay’ may be
special, but every bit as human as ‘straight’

Look. This is much ado about very little. People who love each other often want to marry each other... including LGBTQ people. Some who marry want to have children. (I have actually had a foolish religious fanatic tell me that gay people violated G*d's law because "they couldn't have children." Bullfeathers! Most adult humans are physically perfectly capable of begetting or bearing children... including LGBTQ people.)

To this point, before five members of the US Supreme Court saw fit to bless gay marriages, this was not possible under law, even though LGBTQ people often married de facto without benefit of stupid state laws. Now they can marry, in all fifty states, and people who are uncomfortable with that may as well fucking get over it, possibly invite a lesbian couple over for dinner, and adjust to the new reality. Did you not see it was inevitable? I don't care if you see it is also right and proper; it's your loss if you don't!

A Priori Nullification: GOPers Prepare To Disobey Possible Forthcoming Supreme Court Order Requiring States To Recognize Gay Marriages

Tierney Sneed at TPM:

Ahead of a potentially historic Supreme Court ruling, leading Republicans are vowing to defy any decision that sanctions same-sex marriage and are challenging the very legitimacy of the high court.

With a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges expected before the end of June, conservatives are confronted with what was only a few years ago a nearly unthinkable possibility: a Supreme Court decision that decisively makes same-sex marriage a constitutional right.

Fearing a huge setback to their cause, opponents of same-sex marriage, including some of the major contenders for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, are darkly warning that they will not "honor" an adverse Supreme Court decision. Some are calling for civil disobedience. Others are moving to strip the Supreme Court of its authority to decide whether gay couples should be allowed to marry, while others have questioned whether the court has that jurisdiction in the first place. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has said that such a decision would be "fundamentally illegitimate."

...

I've often said Sen. Cruz is "illegitimate," though not quite so politely... [/sigh]

The party of "law and order" as recently as the Nixon presidency, today's GOP is ready, even eager, to defy laws and even constitutional rulings it doesn't like. But what did we expect?

I noticed that Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart (R) has announced that his office will NOT be ready with the necessary paperwork to issue gay marriage licenses, effectively saying that anyone who doesn't like that can just (ahem) suck on it. Willful defiance of a Supreme Court ruling: I wonder how Mr. Stanart would like the view from inside a prison cell?

On the plus side, Dallas County seems to take another attitude. This may be the only time you'll get me to admit that, in this one matter, Dallas is superior to Houston. Goddamn it.

OK TP/GOP State House Candidate Advocates Stoning Gay People To Death

... here. And I don't mean with newly legalized marijuana. The craziness gets worse every day...

Alabama Redneck Has A Sense Of Humor About Gay Marriage

There is hope yet for Alabama, as long as people like Jeremy "J.T." Addaway live there and project dry humor about a subject that seems to have upset a lot of Alabamans:

(Watch on YouTube)

Redneck though he may be, Mr. Addaway has a better attitude than a lot of people confronted with the fact that gay marriage is quickly becoming a reality everywhere in America. If gays marry in Alabama, why should anyone be anything but happy for the young (or old) couples? It's not as if they head right away for a pile of brush on your land as soon as the wedding is over, And sure enough, I just looked out the window, and there are none falling from the sky...

ASIDE: Stella has still not voiced any suggestion that gay marriage in Texas, when it gets here RSN despite legislative temper tantrums, will adversely affect our relationship. I was really worried: Our House doesn't have room for all the LGBTs who would doubtless flock to our door when the law is changed...

You Think Religious Fundamentalists Are Harmless, As Long As They Call Themselves Christian? Fat Chance!

librarisingnsf at Kos, for LGBT Kos Community:

Anti-Gay NC Church Members Indicted For Felony Kidnapping And Assault Of Gay Man

...

From LGBTQ Nation:

... but religious bigotry
is no laughing matter

Five members of an anti-LGBT church in Spindale, N.C., were indicted on several felony charges this week, following a complaint lodged by a young gay man who says church members kidnapped him and assaulted him because of his sexual orientation.

A grand jury indicted Justin Brock Covington, Brooke McFadden Covington, Robert Louis Walker Jr. and Adam Christopher Bartley on second degree kidnapping and simple assault charges. A fifth member, Sarah Covington Anderson, was indicted on second degree kidnapping as well as simple assault and assault by strangulation.

The grand jury met on Monday, with indictment announcements released on Tuesday.

All are members of The Word of Faith Fellowship, a church which has continually come under fire for its alleged cult-like behaviors and severe treatment of members, particularly young people.

In this most recent case, 21-year-old student Matthew Fenner, a member of the church since age 16, alleges that several members targeted him because of his sexual orientation.

...

May the good Dog spare me from bigots. If this church didn't hate gays, they'd hate Blacks. If they didn't hate Blacks, they'd hate Unitarians. (No, I'm not making that up; one such person raged and raved at me for being a UU... the R&R took place over a lunch table at a music workshop. FWIW, my UU church in my young adult years had an openly gay minister, and all of us, straight, gay and otherwise, admired him greatly.)

Apparently the fundies have to hate somebody to keep the fire in their bellies going. I am not Christian, but I have serious doubts that Jesus would recognize these people as members of his flock.

Astonishing? No. Offensive? Yes. Mayor Annise Parker's Daughter Was Refused A Driver's License Because Her Birth Certificate Lists Two Mothers

Houston Mayor Annise Parker

Just how far does anti-gay bigotry go in Texas? Usually not very far in places like Houston, where the gay community is large, active and not shy about asserting itself. But in this case, Houston Mayor Annise Parker's daughter presented her documents at a Texas DPS office when applying to take a driver's test... she'd already done everything but the test... and was rejected because some of her documents were listed under mom A, and some under mom K. Can't do that, says Texas DPS.

A few phone calls from Her Honor the Mayor resulted in a reversal. But what if she had not been the Mayor's daughter? This is embarrassing to Houstonians who appreciate what the LGBTQ community... and particularly the Mayor herself... bring to the city. Want a truly great symphony orchestra? how about a major ballet company? Try building those without gay members; it simply can't be done. Then there's Mayor Parker: she was one of the first in the "awl bidness" to master the limited software available 30+ years ago; it's not just the arts that would be bankrupted without the gay community.

Three cheers for our Mayor, and for her daughter. Someday this flavor of raw bigotry, like many others before it, will be ancient history.

Gay NFL Players Too Big A Problem To Tackle? ESPN Survey Shows Most Players Don't Care

I confess I'm getting really tired of football fans who feel it's just too icky for one of their NFL heroes to be gay. A survey shows it's not an issue with a great majority of the players. So why is the players' sexuality even the fans' business?

'That defensive lineman is
flirting with me!' —
NOT on this man's mind!

This is not about whether players are boinking other players. In general, it's considered bad form in America to hit on one's colleagues (for a meaning of "hit on" that doesn't involve one's job as a defensive lineman), whatever your occupation, for women or men, gay or straight. Not that it doesn't happen, but that people who pursue their love lives at the office probably have more serious problems to contend with than whether someone outside the relationship approves of the participants' sexual orientation.

As a musician, I often found myself in situations in which fifty percent or more of my colleagues on a job were openly gay. I'm openly straight. Why it occurs to anyone that s/he should care about his/her teammates' (coworkers') sexuality is beyond me. And no audience member ever asked me questions or expressed concerns about the matter. Why should it be any different in sports?

I realize football involves more physical contact than music. Or maybe it's about locker rooms, but I can't even comprehend that: when I think of the number of times I've changed into concert dress in the men's room of a hall or museum, I find it just isn't an issue... just before and just after a performance, a musician has a whole lot more on his/her mind than that. The same is surely true of professional football players. And the same should be true of fans.

Put bluntly: if it bothers you, just get over it. It's none of your business... and it's damned tiresome to listen to.

Southern California Doc Diagnoses Man As Suffering Chronic ‘Homosexual Behavior’ — Lists DSM Code Not Used For 40 Years

Via Kos, from Salon's Katie McDonough:

The results of a Southern California man’s most recent routine physical revealed a few conditions that really did not surprise him: He has a B-12 deficiency, high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

But it was another condition, identified as “chronic” on Matthew Moore’s patient plan, that blindsided him: His physician had listed “homosexual behavior” as a disease on his chart.

Moore, an openly gay man, was understandably shocked, as he told NBC News: “My jaw was on the floor. At first, I kind of laughed, I thought, ‘Here’s another way that gay people are lessened and made to feel less-than,’ and then as I thought about it and as I dealt with it, it angered me.”

When he returned to the office to discuss his doctor’s diagnosis, she defended it to him, explaining that it “is still up to debate” whether or not homosexuality is “thought of as a disease,” according to Moore. (Fact check: It is decidedly  not “still up to debate.”)

...

The health association returned Moore’s money and included a note of apology distancing itself from his doctor’s actions. ...

“We would like to unequivocally state that the Torrance Memorial Physician Network does not view homosexuality as a disease or a chronic condition and we do not endorse or approve of the use of Code 302.0 as a diagnosis for homosexuality.” ...

...

I wonder if the doctor keeps leeches in her office on the assumption that their utility in modern medicine is "still up to [sic] debate." (Image intentionally omitted.) Or the surgical kit displayed [right], which was used by Dr. Samuel Mudd to treat John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated President Lincoln... is its utility in our era "still up to debate" to her? The way this woman is practicing medicine is clearly not compatible with 21^st-century medical standards, and if she is unwilling to bring her practices in line with those standards, she should have her license revoked.

Medicine is not a field in which the active application of one's sociopolitical views is harmless and acceptable. The "good" Doctor should be told, "can it... or be canned."

OK, Gay Californians Can Marry Now

The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its stay on the rejection of Prop. 8. This means the Supreme Court ruling earlier this week applies immediately... even in California. Amazing!

DOMA Down

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is unconstitutional. The basis of the decision isn't rocket science; the only amazing things are that a) the Supremes followed through rather than looking for a way to keep the law, and b) they based it in part on a Fifth Amendment equal-liberty argument, which in my naive but not humble opinion, is exactly where it belongs.

Here's Justice Kennedy for the Court:

...

“DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment,” Kennedy wrote for the Court. “DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal.”

Kennedy’s opinion struck down DOMA in part on equal protection and due process grounds, and in part because marriage is a state issue, determining that Congress lacks a constitutional basis not to recognize definitions set by states.

...

As often happens these days, Justice Kennedy was the swing vote, the rest splitting along usual conservative/"liberal" lines (sorry for the scare quotes, but there are no genuine liberal justices on the Court today). If anyone tells you the judiciary is the nonpolitical branch of government, point them at... well, point them at just about any decision the Court makes these days, including this one.

This may simply shift the gay marriage battleground to individual state constitutions or laws. Even so, it seems nonsensical to me that a couple that is married in one state can be unmarried in another.

And I can't help having a "sufficient unto the day..." feeling about the law. Good riddance to DOMA. It was bad law from the beginning. It had only two bases, hatred and fear, and no measurable positive consequences for American society... none whatsoever. For those who "lost" this battle, what was the upshot? If you don't "believe in" same-sex marriage, you can still refuse to marry a partner of the same sex as yours. Oh, and by the way, if you're that committed to hate and fear, AFAIC, you can go straight to Hell, and soon would be good.

To my LGBTQ friends who have been unable to marry but wanted to do so... my heartfelt best wishes. Now you have a right... a right protected right there in the Bill of Rights... to marry. Just don't save me a piece of cake with icky sugar‑laden icing...

Supreme Court: Possible Outcomes On Prop. 8

Sahil Kapur of TPM outlines the possibilities. There are some twists, e.g., lower courts unexpectedly granted the right to appeal the law to the originators of Prop. 8... not the California government, which declined to defend it... and the Supremes may decide they didn't have standing. So the article is worth a read.

I'll add only one observation. We say casually that the Supreme Court "decides" the constitutionality of a law. But at least two Supreme Court members, Scalia and Thomas (who almost always votes with Scalia), and possibly more, have already made up their minds, and Scalia is even talking about it. If that isn't questionable judicial ethics, I don't know what is... broadcasting one's pre-judgment of a case before even hearing it. But The Fat Over-aged Catholic Choirboy will push the limits, and apparently no one sees fit to try to stop him. So I am confident there are two votes on the Court to reinstate Prop. 8 before proceedings even begin.

This is the most politicized Supreme Court ever, and it was created that way by a succession of Republican presidents nominating Justices well right-of-center who lied their way through confirmation hearings to gain seats on the bench. If, over a long enough time period, Democrats nominate judicial moderates and Republicans nominate off-the-wall right-wing nut-jobs, the bench will tilt so far to the right that the building's stability will be endangered. That is where we stand today. No president ever nominates new Justices as far to the left as virtually all Republican nominees are to the right. So for a while we're stuck with a Court of wing-nuts appointed to serve an agenda.

Let me say for the record that ruling Prop. 8 constitutional would be an injustice on a massive scale affecting our most personal of rights: the right to formalize legal recognition of our most intimate partnerships. Tens of thousands of gay people have already gotten married in California alone: stating now that the law grants none of the legal benefits of marriage to gay couples legally married is reneging on a fundamental, once presumed irrevocable, promise. If we cannot depend on the government to keep its bargains, what can we depend on?

Second Circuit Becomes Second Circuit-Level Federal Court To Dump DOMA

This is a victory for LGBTQs. And straights. And every American under the Sun, whether they know it or not!

Congrats to my good friend's daughter and her wife; you know who you are. You were "early adopters" in Massachusetts, if I recall correctly, and now you can move anywhere in the States you want to go.

Marriage is a human right. Depriving gay people of it is a human rights violation. Pretty simple, eh? If you don't like the new reality, you're in the wrong country!

Of course the Repugnicans wlll take it to the Supremes, and Dog knows what the Supremes will do to the two decisions... First Circuit and Second Circuit Courts of Appeal... striking down DOMA as unconstitutional. But as some commenters have pointed out, Kennedy is more libertarian in his inclinations than social conservative, so there is some hope. Meanwhile... to those who have always been married in their own eyes and in mine, congratulations on being married in the eyes of the law of the land!

Rmoney's Breathtaking Ignorance

In a magazine interview about LGBT issues, Rmoney said:

I didn’t know you had families.

It's bad enough to run an asshole for president, but the GOP is running an ignorant asshole...

Dems Draft Platform Containing Marriage Equality

It's
about
damned
time!

For all my reservations about today's Democratic Party, at least now they're on record, even if belatedly. It's not sufficient, but it was certainly necessary.

BTW, the platform committee vote was unanimous... as it should be.

At Least Obama Landed On The Pro-Human-Rights Side Of The Gay-Marriage Issue. Romney, However...

Whatever Obama may have done, whatever he neglected to do, however tepid his affirmation of support for marriage equality, at least he doesn't have this in his background, as revealed in WaPo about Romney in an incident with an allegedly gay student at Romney's prep school:

...

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another. Four of them — Friedemann, now a dentist; Phillip Maxwell, a lawyer; Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor; and David Seed, a retired principal — spoke on the record. Another former student who witnessed the incident asked not to be identified. The men have differing political affiliations, although they mostly lean Democratic. Buford volunteered for Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008. Seed, a registered independent, has served as a Republican county chairman in Michigan. All of them said that politics in no way colored their recollections.

...

And you thought Romney's tying the poor dog to the roof of the car was bad!

If what these five men have independently described, reported in the Washington Post, is true, Romney effectively committed assault, bullying a young gay man... and got away with it.

Romney claims not to remember the incident. Then again, Romney lies a lot.

Maybe this story will endear Romney to his base. But jeebus on a crutch... assault? What are they willing to forgive? I suppose the answer is "anything in pursuit of power."

Reflection On Obama And Gay Marriage

In my post below, I was wrong about Obama's level of commitment to gay marriage. Rick Klein reminds us:

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.

In other words, don't expect him to bother backing up his personal position with any political muscle. Not that a president could do much at a state level anyway, but this statement, as Jon Stewart put it, is "weak tea." And those who know me well know I detest weak tea.

I wish Obama would do one damned thing to justify my vote for him. But he probably won't do more than he already has. The only thing he has to offer liberals is this: he's not Rmoney.

UPDATE: here's an excerpt from the transcript of the interview by Robin Roberts:

...


PRESIDENT OBAMA: ...


At a certain point, I've just concluded that-- for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that-- I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. Now-- I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has also been I didn't want to nationalize the issue. There's a tendency when I weigh in to think suddenly it becomes political and it becomes polarized.


And what you're seeing is, I think, states working through this issue-- in fits and starts, all across the country. Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that's a healthy process and a healthy debate. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what's recognized as a marriage.


ROBIN ROBERTS: Well, Mr. President, it's-- it's not being worked out on the state level. We saw that Tuesday in North Carolina, the 30th state to announce its ban on gay marriage.


PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well-- well-- well, what I'm saying is is that different states are coming to different conclusions. But this debate is taking place-- at a local level. And I think the whole country is evolving and changing. And-- you know, one of the things that I'd like to see is-- that a conversation continue in a respectful way.


I think it's important to recognize that-- folks-- who-- feel very strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as-- between a man and a woman-- many of them are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective. They're coming at it because they care about families. And-- they-- they have a different understanding, in terms of-- you know, what the word "marriage" should mean. And I-- a bunch of 'em are friends of mine-- you know, pastors and-- you know, people who-- I deeply respect.


ROBIN ROBERTS: Especially in the Black community.


PRESIDENT OBAMA: Absolutely.


...

So that's what it boils down to. To appease Black preachers, Obama is willing to sacrifice a human right, or at least willing to allow it to be sacrificed by others while the "conversation continue[s] in a respectful way." Oh well... add it to the list, along with "tyrant" and "killer"; just remember to vote for him because he's not Rmoney...