693
submitted 2 years ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AirDevil@lemmy.world 58 points 2 years ago

I had a friend who is gay and supported Mitt Romney back in the day. He campaigned against gays. Obama won and legalized same-sex marriage. She is now married to her wife. Reminds me of her

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

obama didn't legalize same sex marriage; the supreme court did

[-] AirDevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Granted, you're technically right. Support for it was certainly a large part of Obama's campaign though. It's unclear what the overall result would have been for Obergfell vs Hodges with an administration that would have been vitriolic to the ruling.

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.

-- barrack obama 2008 during his campaign.

[-] AirDevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Voted against DOMA and eventually repealed it. There were some weird semantics about naming nomenclature of calling it a marriage in the early 2000's. During the primaries he gave vague answers about some religions being opposed to it but did flip from earlier statements about same-sex marriages in his earlier career

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

Voted against DOMA and eventually repealed it.

doma was voted and enacted in 1996.

obama entered federal politics in 2008.

the supreme court invalidated doma in 2015.

doma was repealed in 2022

[-] AirDevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

You're right and I'm misremembering how it happened. I really thought DOMA was later. I'm not sure the distinction between invalidating in verse repealing it. He may have seemed more pro-LGBTQ since others were more outwardly against it.

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I’m not sure the distinction between invalidating in verse repealing it.

in practical terms:

  • the repeal had no impact and was done by a congressional act that gave anti-lgbtq bigots legal protections for their bigotry; it was little more than political theater to make democrats seem more progressive on an issue that they chose wrongly (and cover biden's ass) in 1996.
  • the invalidation meant that i could sponsor my life partner for citizenship, but he had already been deported years prior and he was (barely) young enough to know that he had enough time to rebuild his life with someone else and did so; while i was too old and autistic to make getting back on that horse a reality.

He may have seemed more pro-LGBTQ since others were more outwardly against it.

i suspect there's a blind spot when it comes to democratic voters and lgbt issues; it's assumed they're more gay friendly unless you're bitten by their anti-gay policies.

this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
693 points (98.2% liked)

News

35986 readers
734 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS