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

[Scott]

The topic is not about Romney per se. Reference need to be on the issue of gay marriage, or rights.

Off topic posts will be deleted.

[pomchop]

Romney: "Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."

Or ??....marriage is a legal definition of a relationship between one man and one woman that grants a variety of tax and other benefits that are denied to american citizens who have a relationship between two members of the same sex.....this is called DISCRIMINATION based upon gender

[Jingthing]

In any event, as Bill Maher stated on his show Friday night, this is probably a smart move by Obama. It will energize his base. Obama was never going to win anybody from the right or far right in any scenario. And, in fact, it appears to have worked to raise more money, and as we all know, money wins elections.

It wasn't that smart. He was forced into it. After the Biden slip, his "evolving" stance would have made him look just too ridiculous. He really had no choice then. He's be better off politically without the Biden slip and without the announcement.

I find it hard to believe that Obama would be forced into this decision by a slip-up by a notorious gaffer. And, he has a staff of many savvy politicos. I think it was more calculated than you think.

Fine. I don't. He was put into a corner. He would have looked worse not coming out now than what he did. If you saw the press conference after the Biden slip, before Obama came out, you would understand my point of view about this (which is the consensus now). Historians will tell the story. Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

I believe it was Obama who described his views as 'evolving'.

Yes...I expected Candidate Obama to wordsmith his delivery. But the media accepted & embraced that description and has been parroting it since

What media? Fox is calling it flip flopping. I don't think it matters. His base ALWAYS knew he has gay people's back. Romney, Mr. Etch a Sketch, I'm sorry he's at the creepy level of pandering to whatever wins.

If, as you say, his base always knew he has gay people's backs, does that mean he has always favored same sex marriages?

If you respond with a yes, that means Obama lied about it in 2004 and 2007 in order to get votes and get elected to the Senate and the Presidency?

I would say that Obama's lying about it ranks right up there at the top of being at the "creepy level of pandering to whatever wins".

[keemapoot]

In any event, as Bill Maher stated on his show Friday night, this is probably a smart move by Obama. It will energize his base. Obama was never going to win anybody from the right or far right in any scenario. And, in fact, it appears to have worked to raise more money, and as we all know, money wins elections.

It wasn't that smart. He was forced into it. After the Biden slip, his "evolving" stance would have made him look just too ridiculous. He really had no choice then. He's be better off politically without the Biden slip and without the announcement.

I find it hard to believe that Obama would be forced into this decision by a slip-up by a notorious gaffer. And, he has a staff of many savvy politicos. I think it was more calculated than you think.

Fine. I don't. He was put into a corner. He would have looked worse not coming out now than what he did. If you saw the press conference after the Biden slip, before Obama came out, you would understand my point of view about this (which is the consensus now). Historians will tell the story.

Do you really believe the most powerful man (and his huge team) in the world are so simplistically reactionary? I gave you more credit than this...

[Jingthing]

Do you really believe the most powerful man (and his huge team) in the world are so simplistically reactionary? I gave you more credit than this...

I have stated my POV but I don't think it was a simplistic decision. But it was a fast one. I don't care what credit you give me. What can I buy with your credit?

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

[koheesti]

Romney: "Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."

Or ??....marriage is a legal definition of a relationship between one man and one woman that grants a variety of tax and other benefits that are denied to american citizens who have a relationship between two members of the same sex.....this is called DISCRIMINATION based upon gender

In modern arenas and stadiums in America there are more restrooms for women then men. Is that also discrimination based upon gender? When you're in a public place and really have to go bad, nothing else seems more important at the time.

[Jingthing]

Romney: "Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."

Or ??....marriage is a legal definition of a relationship between one man and one woman that grants a variety of tax and other benefits that are denied to american citizens who have a relationship between two members of the same sex.....this is called DISCRIMINATION based upon gender

In modern arenas and stadiums in America there are more restrooms for women then men. Is that also discrimination based upon gender? When you're in a public place and really have to go bad, nothing else seems more important at the time.

It would be a bias towards male if there WEREN'T more female toilets. In any case, your example couldn't be more off point to the topic of marriage equality.

Next ...

[koheesti]

Romney: "Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."

Or ??....marriage is a legal definition of a relationship between one man and one woman that grants a variety of tax and other benefits that are denied to american citizens who have a relationship between two members of the same sex.....this is called DISCRIMINATION based upon gender

In modern arenas and stadiums in America there are more restrooms for women then men. Is that also discrimination based upon gender? When you're in a public place and really have to go bad, nothing else seems more important at the time.

It would be a bias towards male if there WEREN'T more female toilets. In any case, your example couldn't be more off point to the topic of marriage equality.

Next ...

You're the one who brought up "DISCRIMINATION based upon gender". Perhaps you can help out and list when discrimination by gender is important and when it isn't? Nevermind, when stacked up against the economy, jobs, health care, national debt or national defense, ALL gender discrimination is minor and a waste of government's time - EXCEPT maybe when used to distract voters from the poor job the current administration has done in charge of the country.

Think about it, with all the serious problems our country - and the world at large - are faced with nowadays, the Obama Admin started off 2012 with its "War on Women" (contraception issue), then race baiting (Trayvon) and now Gay Marriage. <deleted>?

Edited May 13, 2012 by koheesti

[GentlemanJim]

Romney: "Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."

Or ??....marriage is a legal definition of a relationship between one man and one woman that grants a variety of tax and other benefits that are denied to american citizens who have a relationship between two members of the same sex.....this is called DISCRIMINATION based upon gender

In modern arenas and stadiums in America there are more restrooms for women then men. Is that also discrimination based upon gender? When you're in a public place and really have to go bad, nothing else seems more important at the time.

It would be a bias towards male if there WEREN'T more female toilets. In any case, your example couldn't be more off point to the topic of marriage equality.

Next ...

Well, Koheesti, the fact is they need more restrooms for women. Have you ever watched women at these events go to public restrooms? They ponce about, make up, clothes, sit down toilets blah blah blah. Men walk in, syphon the python and walk out you can get 5-10 men through a restroom for every woman. Is that discrimination or is it a fact? Is a fact discrimination?

[koheesti]

Romney: "Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."

Or ??....marriage is a legal definition of a relationship between one man and one woman that grants a variety of tax and other benefits that are denied to american citizens who have a relationship between two members of the same sex.....this is called DISCRIMINATION based upon gender

In modern arenas and stadiums in America there are more restrooms for women then men. Is that also discrimination based upon gender? When you're in a public place and really have to go bad, nothing else seems more important at the time.

It would be a bias towards male if there WEREN'T more female toilets. In any case, your example couldn't be more off point to the topic of marriage equality.

Next ...

Well, Koheesti, the fact is they need more restrooms for women. Have you ever watched women at these events go to public restrooms? They ponce about, make up, clothes, sit down toilets blah blah blah. Men walk in, syphon the python and walk out you can get 5-10 men through a restroom for every woman. Is that discrimination or is it a fact? Is a fact discrimination?

Personally I applauded the move for more women toilets. They do seem to need more so it seemed like a good idea. Of course, during the game when I needed the toilet and found the men's room was now a women's room and I had to search for a place to "syphon the python" I wasn't applauding then.

Seriously, just because something might seem like "common sense" doesn't mean it can't also be discriminatory. Two cases from 20 years ago come to mind. Once the city councilmen went to a boxing match together and got accused of sexual discrimination because they didn't invite the councilwoman. She admitted she wasn't interested but it was discriminatory for the men not to ask any way.

Or the job recruiter who marked people's folders who spoke Spanish as a way to find them quicker who got into trouble because someone thought he was marking the hispanic job seekers so as to exclude them.

Some old fashioned people out there probably don't think being against gay marriage is discrimination because marriage is between a man and a woman. That had been common sense for hundreds of years - if not more.

Edited May 13, 2012 by koheesti

[Jingthing]

Romney: "Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."

Or ??....marriage is a legal definition of a relationship between one man and one woman that grants a variety of tax and other benefits that are denied to american citizens who have a relationship between two members of the same sex.....this is called DISCRIMINATION based upon gender

In modern arenas and stadiums in America there are more restrooms for women then men. Is that also discrimination based upon gender? When you're in a public place and really have to go bad, nothing else seems more important at the time.

It would be a bias towards male if there WEREN'T more female toilets. In any case, your example couldn't be more off point to the topic of marriage equality.

Next ...

You're the one who brought up "DISCRIMINATION based upon gender". Perhaps you can help out and list when discrimination by gender is important and when it isn't? Nevermind, when stacked up against the economy, jobs, health care, national debt or national defense, ALL gender discrimination is minor and a waste of government's time - EXCEPT maybe when used to distract voters from the poor job the current administration has done in charge of the country.

Think about it, with all the serious problems our country - and the world at large - are faced with nowadays, the Obama Admin started off 2012 with its "War on Women" (contraception issue), then race baiting (Trayvon) and now Gay Marriage. <deleted>?

Yes many serious problems indeed. Economy, jobs, war and peace.

However such issues as --

Women's reproductive rights

Bringing gay people up to first class citizenship status

Gun Control

and Racism / Police Corruption

are all legitimate political issues as well.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Think about it, with all the serious problems our country - and the world at large - are faced with nowadays, the Obama Admin started off 2012 with its "War on Women" (contraception issue), then race baiting (Trayvon) and now Gay Marriage. <deleted>?

Yes many serious problems indeed. Economy, jobs, war and peace.

However such issues as --

Women's reproductive rights

Bringing gay people up to first class citizenship status

Gun Control

and Racism / Police Corruption

are all legitimate political issues as well.

Sure, they are legit. But with today's problems they are not a priority. For example, in a hotel having clean linen on the beds is extremely important - but when the building IS ON FIRE well, it just isn't as important anymore, is it?

Edited May 13, 2012 by koheesti

[flying]

Sure, they are legit. But with today's problems they are not a priority. For example, in a hotel having clean linen on the beds is extremely important - but when the building IS ON FIRE well, it just isn't as important anymore, is it?

This is the problem.....If they don't stop dinking with minutia

there will be no building left to govern.

[NovaBlue05]

The topic is not about Romney per se. Reference need to be on the issue of gay marriage, or rights.

Off topic posts will be deleted.

The reporting in the US is how Obamas declaration on gay marraige affects his re-election bid and how it differs from Romney's. That's the real story as it has been reported.

[Exsexyman]

Is this what it comes down to? The pro's and con's about women's and men's rest rooms? At the last count the population of America was 311 million. And these two are the best you can come up with? As a non American, all i can say is, God help you!

[koheesti]

In a gutsy move, Newsweek has released the cover of their next issue, on the cover of which they depict President Obama with a rainbow halo and the title of 'The First Gay President'.

The news-magazine, which hits stands Monday, is using the shock factor of labeling the straight, married, father-of-two President to draw attention to itself.

Read more:

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1unFldYZw

Edited May 13, 2012 by koheesti

[NovaBlue05]

Is this what it comes down to? The pro's and con's about women's and men's rest rooms? At the last count the population of America was 311 million. And these two are the best you can come up with? As a non American, all i can say is, God help you!

The truly intelligent, unselfish, ethical, problem solving types are also too intelligent to run for high political office. Why would they put themselves through that.

We get salesmen instead

[Jingthing]

In a gutsy move, Newsweek has released the cover of their next issue, on the cover of which they depict President Obama with a rainbow halo and the title of 'The First Gay President'.

The news-magazine, which hits stands Monday, is using the shock factor of labeling the straight, married, father-of-two President to draw attention to itself.

Read more:

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1unFldYZw

It's not shocking. It's clever. We called Clinton our first black president even though not black, and it resonated. They are obviously not being literal. DUH!

Of course, another wrinkle, is Gay Honest Abe!

Edited May 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[hhfarang]

In a gutsy move, Newsweek has released the cover of their next issue, on the cover of which they depict President Obama with a rainbow halo and the title of 'The First Gay President'.

The news-magazine, which hits stands Monday, is using the shock factor of labeling the straight, married, father-of-two President to draw attention to itself.

Read more:

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1unFldYZw

... and the New Yorker cover:

Edited May 14, 2012 by hhfarang

[Jingthing]

That's great!

Gotta love the New Yorker

[electau]

What percentage of a population of a country is classified as homosexual/lesbian ?

Legal marriage can only be between a normal male and a female, how does one "consumate" a same sex relationship?

And one does not have to have any religious opinions on the subject.

Same sex relationships fail a very basic test. It is known as the plug and socket test

Edited May 14, 2012 by electau

[Jingthing]

What percentage of a population of a country is classified as homosexual/lesbian ?

Legal marriage can only be between a normal male and a female, how does one "consumate" a same sex relationship?

And one does not have to have any religious opinions on the subject.

Same sex relationships fail a very basic test. It is known as the plug and socket test

Hard to know the percentages and also you've got real bisexuals as well. Definitely a minority. So what? Minorities don't deserve equal rights, is that it?

Same sex marriage is now legal in a number of countries, including nations in Europe, South America, North America, and even the most homophobic continent on the planet -- Africa. So of course it is POSSIBLE under the law. It is a choice for any country to make.

BTW, previously discussed here is that there is no legal same sex marriage anywhere in Asia. True that, but apparently NEPAL is headed in that direction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Nepal

Consummation? I suppose that could be an issue if the law stipulates details about consummation. Frankly, its the first time I've ever heard this argument against same sex marriage and it sounds really off the wall, and irrelevant. Two people decide to marry. The details of their bedroom activities are their own business.

The test you are talking about is for electricians. Nothing to do with marriage law.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[kerryk]

(UK) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 CHAPTER 18

Grounds on which a marriage is voidable.A marriage celebrated after 31st July 1971 shall be voidable on the following grounds only, that is to say—

(a)that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the incapacity of either party to consummate it;

[Jingthing]

(UK) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 CHAPTER 18

Grounds on which a marriage is voidable.A marriage celebrated after 31st July 1971 shall be voidable on the following grounds only, that is to say—

(a)that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the incapacity of either party to consummate it;

So what? It's a UK law and one partner has to complain. This isn't seriously an objection to legal same sex marriage, is it?

[GiHadOrange]

Romney: "Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."

Or ??....marriage is a legal definition of a relationship between one man and one woman that grants a variety of tax and other benefits that are denied to american citizens who have a relationship between two members of the same sex.....this is called DISCRIMINATION based upon gender

No one denies you the right to marry someone as per definition for marriage given by Romney.

There is no discrimination.

[Jingthing]

Romney: "Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."

Or ??....marriage is a legal definition of a relationship between one man and one woman that grants a variety of tax and other benefits that are denied to american citizens who have a relationship between two members of the same sex.....this is called DISCRIMINATION based upon gender

No one denies you the right to marry someone as per definition for marriage given by Romney.

There is no discrimination.

It is discrimination not based on gender but by sexual orientation. Someday the US supreme court will rule this kind of discrimination unconstitutional just as they ruled on state bans on interracial marriages not so long ago. Edited May 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Same sex marriage is now legal in a number of countries, including nations in Europe, South America, North America, and even the most homophobic continent on the planet -- Africa. So of course it is POSSIBLE under the law. It is a choice for any country to make.

What do you mean by "It is a choice for any country to make"? I don't think you really believe that. If marriage is a basic human right then a country SHOULD NOT have a choice whether to allow it or not - should they? I mean, Americans have made the choice not to allow same sex marriage on many occasions yet that obviously isn't good enough. So "choice" only matters when it is the same choice one would make themselves? As in, "It's your choice - as long as I agree with it otherwise you'll have to choose again"

[Jingthing]

Same sex marriage is now legal in a number of countries, including nations in Europe, South America, North America, and even the most homophobic continent on the planet -- Africa. So of course it is POSSIBLE under the law. It is a choice for any country to make.

What do you mean by "It is a choice for any country to make"? I don't think you really believe that. If marriage is a basic human right then a country SHOULD NOT have a choice whether to allow it or not - should they? I mean, Americans have made the choice not to allow same sex marriage on many occasions yet that obviously isn't good enough. So "choice" only matters when it is the same choice one would make themselves? As in, "It's your choice - as long as I agree with it otherwise you'll have to choose again"

Your post is a bit flame-y, but anyway, what I obviously meant by "choice" is that each country has their own legal system and the marriage laws will be determined by their national (or provincial) legal systems. So choice in the macro sense, yes. Of course laws do change over time. I reckon you are talking in the U.S. context about popular votes vs. constitutional rights. In the U.S. system, the founders made the "choice" to have constitutional rights trump popular votes. This way hated minorities, like gay people, have some hope of advancement towards equality. Edited May 14, 2012 by Jingthing