Warren on Gay Marriage

[Harry Bosch]

Elizabeth Warren voted for Reagan during the AIDS crisis

Holy crap, you're right! It's another reason to like Elizabeth Warren! The ability to change and admit that you were wrong in the past is a very admirable trait.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I liked the clip as soon as I saw it, but I also remember what the righties have made of Obama's observation that poor whites cling to guns & religion -- they STILL quote it as evidence that Obama disrespected religion and was a snide elitist. That always drives me crazy, inasmuch as 'cling to' = have faith in, rely on. Cling to their guns? Yes, until you pry the damn things out of their cold stiff fingers. Cling to religion? Yeah, we still have a Bible Belt.
In any case, the person above who noted that Warren knows the evangelicals won't vote for her anyway is right. Why worry excessively over the yahoos who chant 'Lock her up' and 'Send her back'. Let them cling to Trump.

 

[ronburgundy]

When Elizabeth Warren was asked what she would say to a person who says they hold a cherished belief that marriage is something between one man and one woman, she replied that such a person would most likely be male, and so she would suggest they go ahead and "marry one woman, if he could find one"....

FYI, she did NOT "reply that such a person would most likely be male". She said "I am going to assume this person is male", simply so she could give a personalized the response that made sense in the context of the hypothetical posed to her, "Well, then you should marry one woman." ....

Either way, coming from a liberal, it's a pathetically lukewarm response. #appeasement

Fundy: "Real Marriage^TM is between a (real) man and a (real) woman.
Warren : "That's nice"

It's a perfect response that frame the issue the only way it should be framed, a matter of personal choice where no one has any say on anyone's marriage but their own.

If you believe marriage is X, they you should make your own marriage X and that is the only relevance your belief has.

 

[ronburgundy]

Elizabeth Warren voted for Reagan during the AIDS crisis

And?

It isn't as though there was any widespread thought of gay marriage during the AIDS crisis when most people assumed that AIDS was a 'gay' disease, if indeed, they could even bring themselves to mention the word 'gay.'

So, what year did Saint Bernie decide to support gay marriage?

2009. Though he had been a passionate advocate against laws restricting marriage to straights since at least 1996.

Is there any evidence Warren was ever opposed to gay rights? Her being a registered Republican decades ago based upon economic views she long ago changed has no relevance to her views on gay rights. What we do know is that her platform on gay rights is extremely detailed and comprehensive.

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/lgbtq-equality/?source=soc-WB-ew-tw-rollout-20191010

 

[Politesse]

2009. Though he had been a passionate advocate against laws restricting marriage to straights since at least 1996.

Is there any evidence Warren was ever opposed to gay rights? Her being a registered Republican decades ago based upon economic views she long ago changed has no relevance to her views on gay rights. What we do know is that her platform on gay rights is extremely detailed and comprehensive.

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/lgbtq-equality/?source=soc-WB-ew-tw-rollout-20191010

Nearly everyone was against gay rights until the mid-90s or so. Or at least, too afraid to openly embrace them.

But Warren entered politics in earnest after those years. I'm not aware of any real blemishes on her record. She's quite popular in LGBTQ circles. Challenging DOMA was one of her first priorities as Senator, and shortly thereafter was influential in the FDA's decision to relax restrictions on blood donation.

 

[Toni]

2009. Though he had been a passionate advocate against laws restricting marriage to straights since at least 1996.

Is there any evidence Warren was ever opposed to gay rights? Her being a registered Republican decades ago based upon economic views she long ago changed has no relevance to her views on gay rights. What we do know is that her platform on gay rights is extremely detailed and comprehensive.

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/lgbtq-equality/?source=soc-WB-ew-tw-rollout-20191010

Nearly everyone was against gay rights until the mid-90s or so. Or at least, too afraid to openly embrace them.

I think they were mostly invisible to a lot of us.

I remember a high school teacher in the mid '70's asking a question about whether we believed that sex should be legal between any two consenting adults and my immediate response was: Of course. I think he found it surprising because I was mostly capitalist in those days and certainly not communist then or now. At the time, the notion of 'free love' and down with racism and down with sexism was associated with communism. I was opposed to racism, sexism, discrimination of any kind that I imagined (and my imagination was limited by my youth and lack of experience and exposure).

Note: I was only vaguely aware of homosexuality at the time but that relative ignorance did not color my view and as I became more aware of homosexuality and other sexual orientations, it only solidified my response. This did not include marriage because to be very honest, I had never heard marriage between same sex partners suggested and lacked the imagination to think about it myself. The political times were much more about bringing down the patriarchal norms of marriage = man owning/having rights over woman. Expanding marriage rights was not on a lot of minds of people like myself who frankly could not picture themselves ever choosing marriage and so not even considering that there were same sex couples who absolutely wanted that right. It was, to be honest: a blind spot, or several.

 

[Elixir]

Nearly everyone was against gay rights until the mid-90s or so. Or at least, too afraid to openly embrace them.

I think they were mostly invisible to a lot of us.

I remember a high school teacher in the mid '70's asking a question about whether we believed that sex should be legal between any two consenting adults and my immediate response was: Of course. I think he found it surprising because I was mostly capitalist in those days and certainly not communist then or now. At the time, the notion of 'free love' and down with racism and down with sexism was associated with communism. I was opposed to racism, sexism, discrimination of any kind that I imagined (and my imagination was limited by my youth and lack of experience and exposure).

Note: I was only vaguely aware of homosexuality at the time but that relative ignorance did not color my view and as I became more aware of homosexuality and other sexual orientations, it only solidified my response. This did not include marriage because to be very honest, I had never heard marriage between same sex partners suggested and lacked the imagination to think about it myself. The political times were much more about bringing down the patriarchal norms of marriage = man owning/having rights over woman. Expanding marriage rights was not on a lot of minds of people like myself who frankly could not picture themselves ever choosing marriage and so not even considering that there were same sex couples who absolutely wanted that right. It was, to be honest: a blind spot, or several.

It would surprise a lot of people to learn how much gays were looked down upon by the hippies of the 60s. There was no great aura of acceptance of gays or gay lifestyle in the Haight-Ashbury community then, even though this was before the emergence of AIDS. I was there, and was no less bigoted about it than anyone else. Not that gay people generally bothered me, but flaming gay people definitely did. For someone to need to publicly pronounce their sexual preference seemed ... weird, or mentally unbalanced. Same way that super-macho types who needed to proclaim their uber-masculinity seemed psycho. These days, the latter cases bother me as much as, or more than they ever did - many of that type seem genuinely dangerous. But gays loudly flaunting their gayness doesn't bother me a bit - in fact I get a perverse kick out of seeing people who are visibly bothered by it. As far as marriage ... I've never been able to wrap my head around the idea that who or what someone else "marries" should matter much to anyone else - even my bigoted teen aged hippie self didn't get that, unless maybe a parent who got upset about who or what their baby was marrying. IOW objections to others' loving commitments seem 100% irrational to me.

 

[Politesse]

Nearly everyone was against gay rights until the mid-90s or so. Or at least, too afraid to openly embrace them.

I think they were mostly invisible to a lot of us.

I remember a high school teacher in the mid '70's asking a question about whether we believed that sex should be legal between any two consenting adults and my immediate response was: Of course. I think he found it surprising because I was mostly capitalist in those days and certainly not communist then or now. At the time, the notion of 'free love' and down with racism and down with sexism was associated with communism. I was opposed to racism, sexism, discrimination of any kind that I imagined (and my imagination was limited by my youth and lack of experience and exposure).

Note: I was only vaguely aware of homosexuality at the time but that relative ignorance did not color my view and as I became more aware of homosexuality and other sexual orientations, it only solidified my response. This did not include marriage because to be very honest, I had never heard marriage between same sex partners suggested and lacked the imagination to think about it myself. The political times were much more about bringing down the patriarchal norms of marriage = man owning/having rights over woman. Expanding marriage rights was not on a lot of minds of people like myself who frankly could not picture themselves ever choosing marriage and so not even considering that there were same sex couples who absolutely wanted that right. It was, to be honest: a blind spot, or several.

I was unclear-- by "everyone" I meant on Capitol Hill, not so much in the general population. For us, things were already slowly changing. If not so, then the Democratic Party would never have seen or helped anyone, it is always chasing the bus.

 

[Lion IRC]

Either way, coming from a liberal, it's a pathetically lukewarm response. #appeasement

Fundy: "Real Marriage^TM is between a (real) man and a (real) woman.
Warren : "That's nice"

It's a perfect response that frame the issue the only way it should be framed, a matter of personal choice where no one has any say on anyone's marriage but their own.

If you believe marriage is X, they you should make your own marriage X and that is the only relevance your belief has.

Yes, it's become the standard goto rebuttal used by the liberal left for everything.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
Don't like same sex marriage? Don't have one.

But notice how this doesn't work in both directions.

Don't think climate change is a problem? Fine. Ignore Greta Thunberg.
Gun stockpiling? Where's the problem. Nobody is forcing you to own guns.
Uncomfortable with fluid gender theory? Easy - you don't have to accept non-binary pronouns.

 

[Politesse]

Either way, coming from a liberal, it's a pathetically lukewarm response. #appeasement

Fundy: "Real Marriage^TM is between a (real) man and a (real) woman.
Warren : "That's nice"

It's a perfect response that frame the issue the only way it should be framed, a matter of personal choice where no one has any say on anyone's marriage but their own.

If you believe marriage is X, they you should make your own marriage X and that is the only relevance your belief has.

Yes, it's become the standard goto rebuttal used by the liberal left for everything.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
Don't like same sex marriage? Don't have one.

But notice how this doesn't work in both directions.

Don't think climate change is a problem? Fine. Ignore Greta Thunberg.
Gun stockpiling? Where's the problem. Nobody is forcing you to own guns.
Uncomfortable with fluid gender theory? Easy - you don't have to accept non-binary pronouns.

There's a difference between an action that hurts someone else, and one that does not. I suspect we agree on this, but not on the boundary between those conditions.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes, it's become the standard goto rebuttal used by the liberal left for everything.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
Don't like same sex marriage? Don't have one.

But notice how this doesn't work in both directions.

Don't think climate change is a problem? Fine. Ignore Greta Thunberg.
Gun stockpiling? Where's the problem. Nobody is forcing you to own guns.
Uncomfortable with fluid gender theory? Easy - you don't have to accept non-binary pronouns.

There's a difference between an action that hurts someone else, and one that does not. I suspect we agree on this, but not on the boundary between those conditions.

Pretty sure abortion hurts someone.

 

[Politesse]

Yes, it's become the standard goto rebuttal used by the liberal left for everything.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
Don't like same sex marriage? Don't have one.

But notice how this doesn't work in both directions.

Don't think climate change is a problem? Fine. Ignore Greta Thunberg.
Gun stockpiling? Where's the problem. Nobody is forcing you to own guns.
Uncomfortable with fluid gender theory? Easy - you don't have to accept non-binary pronouns.

There's a difference between an action that hurts someone else, and one that does not. I suspect we agree on this, but not on the boundary between those conditions.

Pretty sure abortion hurts someone.

Well, I don't personally disagree with you on that one.

But I do absolutely see it as different from the question of whether my partner and I should have the right to marry. Who is that supposed to hurt? The feelings of people who worship a book that they don't bother to read very carefully?

 

[Elixir]

Pretty sure abortion hurts someone.

Well, I don't personally disagree with you on that one.

But I do absolutely see it as different from the question of whether my partner and I should have the right to marry. Who is that supposed to hurt? The feelings of people who worship a book that they don't bother to read very carefully?

Abortion hurts the woman - my wife had multiple ectopic pregnancies, so I know. But a blob of protoplasmic material that you can barely see? Sorry, christofascists, I can't prioritize such a thing over the life of my wife.
Climate change/science denial hurts EVERYONE, and these false equivalences are LIES.

 

[thebeave]

When Elizabeth Warren was asked what she would say to a person who says they hold a cherished belief that marriage is something between one man and one woman, she replied that such a person would most likely be male, and so she would suggest they go ahead and "marry one woman, if he could find one".

I'm not a Warren supporter, but I support the sentiment that those with cherished beliefs should go right ahead and cherish them... because that should make them blissful.

It's odd, isn't how society can change on a dime, and if you don't turn left at the same time as the rest of the sheep in the flock, you're ridiculed and ostracized. For example, I'm thinking here about Pres Obama, who when campaigning for his first term was definitely not pro same-sex marriage. So, Obama-2008 (and even later) could easily fit into the mold of this person that Warren is mocking and ridiculing as, apparently, some sort of incel. Society, and human nature in general, is a strange and fickle thing.

 

[Lion IRC]

Well, I don't personally disagree with you on that one.

But I do absolutely see it as different from the question of whether my partner and I should have the right to marry. Who is that supposed to hurt? The feelings of people who worship a book that they don't bother to read very carefully?

We can certainly discuss the harms of abortion and the benefits of traditional marriage and the nuclear family. But wouldn't it be easier (for me) if we just followed the Elizabeth Warren playbook and you dodge the debate? I state my fixed views on a given matter and you say...oh well that's nice for you, nobody is forcing you to be a liberal.

In the spirit of the Op, I shall magnanimously grant you the privilege of believing whatever you want about SSM [/sarcasm.]

 

[Lion IRC]

...Abortion hurts the woman - my wife had multiple ectopic pregnancies, so I know. But a blob of protoplasmic material that you can barely see? Sorry, christofascists, I can't prioritize such a thing over the life of my wife.

Nobody is forcing you to protest outside abortion clinics.

...Climate change/science denial hurts EVERYONE, and these false equivalences are LIES.

Don't like climate change deniers simple - don't listen to them.

 

[PyramidHead]

Elizabeth Warren voted for Reagan during the AIDS crisis

And?

It isn't as though there was any widespread thought of gay marriage during the AIDS crisis when most people assumed that AIDS was a 'gay' disease, if indeed, they could even bring themselves to mention the word 'gay.'

So, what year did Saint Bernie decide to support gay marriage?

1983 if not earlier

 

[PyramidHead]

By the way, the guy in the audience who asked the question was Morgan Cox, one of Elizabeth Warren's corporate megadonors. In other words, it was staged. Welcome back to 2016.

 

[Toni]

Elizabeth Warren voted for Reagan during the AIDS crisis

And?

It isn't as though there was any widespread thought of gay marriage during the AIDS crisis when most people assumed that AIDS was a 'gay' disease, if indeed, they could even bring themselves to mention the word 'gay.'

So, what year did Saint Bernie decide to support gay marriage?

1983 if not earlier

Really? I’d be very interested in a link demonstrating that.

 

[TV and credit cards]

By the way, the guy in the audience who asked the question was Morgan Cox, one of Elizabeth Warren's corporate megadonors. In other words, it was staged. Welcome back to 2016.

Even Fox News is saying "might have" on that one.