U.S. President Barack Obama Says 'Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal'

[News_Editor]

U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA SAYS 'SAME-SEX MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGAL' < br /> 2012-05-10 01:59:16 GMT+7 (ICT) WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) -- U.S. President Barack Obama says 'same-sex marriage should be legal.'

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-05-10

[Jingthing]

Given the way North Carolina voted today, I guess he doesn't hope to compete anywhere in the south except Florida. It's good that he has finally "evolved" for sure but the way he was pressured into it by a gaffe of VP Biden is less than inspirational.

While Biden’s office and the White House insisted there was no space between Biden’s remarks and Obama’s stated position in support of civil unions but not gay marriage, it reeked of bad spin — and everyone (including the White House) sensed it.

Given that tenuous situation and the fact that it was something close to an accepted fact in political circles that Obama, on a personal level, favored allowing gays to marry, it was clear that the President had to say something — and sooner rather than later.

http://www.washingto...lsWDU_blog.html

Bottom line, the most important thing for this issue is for Obama to win reelection. Then he may get some favorable supreme court picks. Will this announcement, forced as it was, help Obama win? It's hard to say.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Jingthing

[coma]

Still a very brave call in an election year. Yes, the figures show that there is rising support for gay marraige [ not just in the US but globally]. But I believe that there are a lot of sleepers out there that still find it a hard thing to swallow and will only voice thier dissapproval at the ballot box. So the question is did he just help his re- election campaign or damage it ?

[Yunla]

He might lose votes on this one. Most if not all pro-gay marriage voters will have already been voting for Obama anyway, and some of his other voters might oppose it and turn away. He should play it electorally as a democratic right, there's no reason why the state should stop people marrying if they want to because its a basic freedom etc. I still think he will lose some votes on this though.

[OzMick]

IMHO his original position was the smarter - allowing civil unions with all the rights of marriage, but giving it a different name to appease the bible-bashers.

[Ulysses G.]

IMHO his original position was the smarter - allowing civil unions with all the rights of marriage, but giving it a different name to appease the bible-bashers.

I agree.

[GentlemanJim]

IMHO his original position was the smarter - allowing civil unions with all the rights of marriage, but giving it a different name to appease the bible-bashers.

I agree.

Wow! I agree also!

I have to admit to being more than a little surprised by the statement. Whilst I agree with what he says, he is in the business of needing to win an election. The Bible belt and Middle America will be sniping today! He has made a big mistake and Romney's team will be doing flip flops today, as he has been given a joker to play anytime he wishes (wait for the live TV debates folks!). Obama should have said nothing new, the evangelical side of the US is just too powerful.

[Scott]

It is refreshing to see some genuine honesty, even if it is contentious.

[keemapoot]

For political reasons, Obama's been riding the fence for a long time. Maybe Biden's gaff was a good thing. Surprisingly, The Fox News anchor, Shephard, today said Republicans risk ending up on the 'wrong side of history' on this issue, and perhaps this big risk by Obama will pay off with moderates thinking Republicans are in the stone age on social issues.

[geriatrickid]

Sure, there are many people that are opposed to the concept of equal marital rights for same sex unions, but in most cases, these people were not going to vote for Obama anyway. What the Democrats risked losing were the core voters that donate, canvass and help get out the vote. This is something to get them back on board.

Don't forget, that being gay crosses political lines. Romney is a supporter of a constitutional amendment that would ban same sex unions. How could any self respecting gay republican support that? There are also alot of Republicans out there that have gay kids. Not every Republican is a right wing intolerant prick. They do have love for their kids and as they get older, want their kids to be happy. These are the Republicans that were moderates and willing to compromise for the good of the nation. As the Santorum faction becomes more intense, these people are being pushed aside and they don't like being told that after years of supporting the party, Republicans of convenience are in charge now. The Republican party has many factions and has the nasty rhetoric intensifies, these people may just sit at home on election day.

In any case, Obama may have supported gay rights on this statement, but he also said it was up to the individual states to decide.

[flying]

I am a heterosexual male but have never understood the opposition to gay marriage.

It is 2012 for gods sake...........What does it matter to anyone if two adults same sex or not want to marry?

They all pay taxes & should be entitled to the same as anyone else in that regard.

Kind of a non-issue with the exception of the bible thumpers flipping out.

[koheesti]

I am a heterosexual male but have never understood the opposition to gay marriage.

It is 2012 for gods sake...........What does it matter to anyone if two adults same sex or not want to marry?

They all pay taxes & should be entitled to the same as anyone else in that regard.

Kind of a non-issue with the exception of the bible thumpers flipping out.

I have no problem with two people getting married, same sex or not. Just how it should even concern me I don't know. I'm not gay and I don't want to get married, but that doesn't mean others shouldn't be allowed to if they want. Too many people (usually religious) care too much about what other people do in their own private lives. As long as they aren't hurting anyone else and don't try to shove it down someone else's throat, why should anyone else care how others live their personal lives?

There is a lot of rubbish out there about the sanctity of marriage. HA! Marriage is a joke in today's modern world what with divorce rates through the roof and celebrity marriages that last days. IMO unless you want to raise a family, getting married is pointless anyway...but people are allowed to do pointless things all the time so why should marriage be any different?

As for how it affects children...traditional couples have been failing at raising kids big time for decades now. A child in a loving home is better than a child in no home or an abusive/non-supportive home. Mothers and fathers have been murdering their own children or sexually abusing them for too long. I bet gay couples could do better.

Now for the problems I have with the political issue of Gay Marriage...

Government should not have to legalize gay marriage because they should not be in the marriage business anyway. The only reason they are in it in the first place is to raise revenue from selling marriage licenses.

The issue is a distraction that allows politicians to avoid the tough issues that affect all citizens and not just 5-10%. They'd rather waste time on marriage than trying to solve problems with the economy, jobs, health or war. It is also used by politicians just to motivate their base voters to the polls - regardless how they truly feel about the issue. It's just a wasteful game.

Finally, if I loved someone and we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together, it wouldn't matter to me whether or not some government entity sold me a piece of paper with the word "Marriage" across the top.

Edited May 10, 2012 by koheesti

[koheesti]

The "evolution" of Obama's decision is no evolution at all. Several times since 1996 for different elections Obama has changed his position depending on which way the political wind was blowing. Now, he is making it out as if he is announcing his support after thinking about it for a long time when really it was just VP Joe Biden's own gaffe last week about supporting gay marriage - counter to the President's previously held belief - that smoked him out...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/my-behalf_644310.html

[rkidlad]

Yes, why should gay couples not be given the right to be just as unhappy as us straight couples.

[Jingthing]

Yes, why should gay couples not be given the right to be just as unhappy as us straight couples.

Yes and remember marrying is never REQUIRED, gay or straight.

[folium]

The "evolution" of Obama's decision is no evolution at all. Several times since 1996 for different elections Obama has changed his position depending on which way the political wind was blowing. Now, he is making it out as if he is announcing his support after thinking about it for a long time when really it was just VP Joe Biden's own gaffe last week about supporting gay marriage - counter to the President's previously held belief - that smoked him out...

http://www.weeklysta...alf_644310.html

Whatever the cause of the final push at least we have a politician doing the right thing irrespective of the possible downside.

The joke is that marriage is probably the most conservative thing anyone can sign up for, especially today when the numbers getting married continue to shrink.

Whatever next perhaps some politician will grow some and legalize drugs drawing to a close the futile war on drugs..won't hold my breath though.

[Jingthing]

Obama made history yesterday in the primary civil rights movement of our era (in America). In that sense, assuming his reelection, he moves his presidency forward into greatness.

Also not to be discounted, Obama remains a quite popular figure internationally. I am sure this news gives hope to gay people in countries where homosexuality is criminalized, such as Iran and Nigeria.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

The "evolution" of Obama's decision is no evolution at all. Several times since 1996 for different elections Obama has changed his position depending on which way the political wind was blowing. Now, he is making it out as if he is announcing his support after thinking about it for a long time when really it was just VP Joe Biden's own gaffe last week about supporting gay marriage - counter to the President's previously held belief - that smoked him out...

http://www.weeklysta...alf_644310.html

Whatever the cause of the final push at least we have a politician doing the right thing irrespective of the possible downside.

Can anyone be sure this is his FINAL push? If polls in a single battleground state start to show that this current position will seriously threaten his re-election, expect some further "evolution". After all, it is all about politics, not about doing the right thing.

[Jingthing]

No way. He can't backtrack now.

That said everyone informed knows he has been for equal gay civil rights for decades now!

Edited May 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

The "evolution" of Obama's decision is no evolution at all. Several times since 1996 for different elections Obama has changed his position depending on which way the political wind was blowing. Now, he is making it out as if he is announcing his support after thinking about it for a long time when really it was just VP Joe Biden's own gaffe last week about supporting gay marriage - counter to the President's previously held belief - that smoked him out...

http://www.weeklysta...alf_644310.html

He was for gay marriage in 1996 when running for the Illinois Senate.

He was against gay marriage in 2004 when running for the US Senate.

He was against gay marriage in 2008 when running for the Presidency.

Now he is for it again in 2012.

Yeah, sure, he has the strength of a bowl of Jello, which also wobbles in the wind.

[Jingthing]

Romney was more pro gay than Ted Kennedy, according to Romney's words.

The reality is that Obama's core base has known Obama has always been pro gay rights and it's really silly to think that after yesterday's announcement he is EVER going to backtrack and state he is against gay marriage again. I acknowledge the past. But this man is now entering his last election in politics. His public position is set now. Anyone who understands the basics of American politics knows that to be obvious.

If you are talking about nuances, yes he will play those games. Such as saying its a states right's issue. But the reality is the full civil rights victory will happen at the federal level, through the supreme court and federal enforcement of policy, such as immigration issues with gay couples.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Surprisingly, The Fox News anchor, Shephard, today said Republicans risk ending up on the 'wrong side of history' on this issue

Shepard is reputed to be gay, so maybe not so surprising.

[Jingthing]

Surprisingly, The Fox News anchor, Shephard, today said Republicans risk ending up on the 'wrong side of history' on this issue

Shepard is reputed to be gay, so maybe not so surprising.

That's kind of a low blow. You don't have to be gay to know the obvious. The majority of Americans are pro gay marriage rights (by a slim margin) but the majority of YOUNGER Americans are for for them by a LARGE majority. So it is clear and obvious this civil rights battle will be won in time and the only question now is how much time. Just as the bigots who supported banning interracial marriage were on the wrong side of history, so are the bigots today opposed full first class citizenship for gay Americans. The U.S. system is a SLOW system and the laws are almost always well behind the public.

BTW, I don't know if Shephard is gay or not, nor do I care (as he's not my type).

Edited May 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[keemapoot]

Surprisingly, The Fox News anchor, Shephard, today said Republicans risk ending up on the 'wrong side of history' on this issue

Shepard is reputed to be gay, so maybe not so surprising.

Really? I wasn't aware of that..., and BTW, if true, what the *(expletive deleted)* is he doing at Fox?

Edited May 10, 2012 by Scott
profanity edited out

[Jingthing]

Surprisingly, The Fox News anchor, Shephard, today said Republicans risk ending up on the 'wrong side of history' on this issue

Shepard is reputed to be gay, so maybe not so surprising.

Really? I wasn't aware of that..., and BTW, if true, what the **** is he doing at Fox?

Like anyone else, the money of course.

[keemapoot]

Surprisingly, The Fox News anchor, Shephard, today said Republicans risk ending up on the 'wrong side of history' on this issue

Shepard is reputed to be gay, so maybe not so surprising.

Really? I wasn't aware of that..., and BTW, if true, what the **** is he doing at Fox?

Like anyone else, the money of course.

Still surprising. Anderson Cooper, (Richard Quest?) seem better placed at CNN. I can't imagine what would happen if Shepard were ever outed. I suppose Fox News would disavow any knowledge like Mission Impossible.

[Ulysses G.]

Surprisingly, The Fox News anchor, Shephard, today said Republicans risk ending up on the 'wrong side of history' on this issue

Shepard is reputed to be gay, so maybe not so surprising.

Really? I wasn't aware of that..., and BTW, if true, what the *(expletive deleted)* is he doing at Fox?

Fox has women, hispanics, asians, black folks and liberals too.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[DP25]

Wow. Good for Obama. I am honestly shocked though that he would come out with this position before an election. Be nice to have a few more surprises like this from him before November.

[keemapoot]

Surprisingly, The Fox News anchor, Shephard, today said Republicans risk ending up on the 'wrong side of history' on this issue

Shepard is reputed to be gay, so maybe not so surprising.

Really? I wasn't aware of that..., and BTW, if true, what the *(expletive deleted)* is he doing at Fox?

Fox has women, hispanics, asians, black folks and liberals too.

You mean Asians like Michelle Malkin, blacks like Michael Steele, and kick ass liberals like Alan Colmes? too funny..., and I like some few people at Fox.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.