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

[koheesti]

Aid given directly to people in need as a result of a natural disaster or famine, fine. But a check written to leaders who oppress their citizens isn't likely to make it to the people who need it most anyway.

In addition, private citizens and charities can still donate wherever they want.

[Jingthing]

Aid given directly to people in need as a result of a natural disaster or famine, fine. But a check written to leaders who oppress their citizens isn't likely to make it to the people who need it most anyway.

In addition, private citizens and charities can still donate wherever they want.

Foreign aid corruption is a totally separate (but very real) issue. Of course if its determined bad governments are stealing most of the Aid, there's no point giving it anymore.

[Colin Yai]

Aid given directly to people in need as a result of a natural disaster or famine, fine. But a check written to leaders who oppress their citizens isn't likely to make it to the people who need it most anyway.

In addition, private citizens and charities can still donate wherever they want.

Foreign aid corruption is a totally separate (but very real) issue. Of course if its determined bad governments are stealing most of the Aid, there's no point giving it anymore.

Quite true JT it is a different issue altogether, but nice to see you acknowledge the problem of pouring aid into a virtual bottomless bucket .

[folium]

Aid given directly to people in need as a result of a natural disaster or famine, fine. But a check written to leaders who oppress their citizens isn't likely to make it to the people who need it most anyway.

In addition, private citizens and charities can still donate wherever they want.

Sadly theft and exploitation of an emergency are fairly widespread. Emergency aid is not immune to being "redirected", see the activities of the Camorra following the Neapolitan quake in 1980,or the Mafia following the L'Aquila quake in 2009 (and they will probably re-emerge with the earthquake near Bologna this morning), and the reconstruction following Katrina in 2005 was marred by no-compete allocation of funding.

Emergency aid can also spawn a dangerous degree of aid dependency which undermines local production and incentives.

Most aid is still bilateral ie tied into donor countries nominally offering funding to another country but actually providing tractors, planes, food, whatever thus keeping factories open and people in jobs and farming lobbies happy back home. Aid is a pretty grubby business when you strip away the packaging.

[Scott]

Let's try stay on the topic.

[Backwoods]

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).

Just curious where you got that info that majority of Americans are pro gay? I have been to over half the states in the US and other than Califonia, have I seen open gays welcomed, they may be public, but that dosen't mean accepted. It is only because of a few rallies does it ever ususally even become a public topic, but of course, it had to be an issue as it has always been for candidate to gain votes! Ask any soldier if he really wants to share a room in the barracks with a gay, I can tell you from y experiences only they don't, but then again, I am retired from the military so I have seen some of these issues when they started.

[Jingthing]

Recent consensus of polling says a slim majority of all Americans support legal same sex marriage. A much larger majority of younger people. Does that mean the same as pro gay? I think not really. I think pro civil rights and fairness, more like it.

As many social commentators have noted, the rapid change in support for same sex marriage is largely probably due to television shows! Such as Will and Grace and Modern Family.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[folium]

Recent consensus of polling says a slim majority of all Americans support legal same sex marriage. A much larger majority of younger people. Does that mean the same as pro gay? I think not really. I think pro civil rights and fairness, more like it.

As many social commentators have noted, the rapid change in support for same sex marriage is largely probably due to television shows! Such as Will and Grace and Modern Family.

And not forgetting Billy Crystal's ground-breaking role as Jodie in the TV show Soap!!

[koheesti]

President Obama's same-sex marriage endorsement makes a full quarter of Florida voters less likely to cast their ballots for him, according to a poll released Monday.

Quinnipac's latest poll of the Sunshine State finds that 25 percent of voters say Obama's endorsement of gay marriage makes them less likely to vote for him. On the other hand, 11 percent say that it makes them more likely to vote for him. Among independents, 23 percent say that they're less likely to vote for Obama over same sex marriage. Older voters (55 and older), born-again evangelical Christians, lower income voters and military veterans are all more likely than other demographic groups to say that Obama's backing of same-sex marriage will sway them towards Romney.

On the whole, Romney beats President Obama by six points in Florida, leading 47 to 41 percent over the incumbent president.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/florida-poll-quarter-of-voters-less-inclined-to-back-124311.html

I am surprised it is such a big deal with voters. They should have been swayed to vote against Obama by his record alone.

[endure]

Just curious where you got that info that majority of Americans are pro gay? I have been to over half the states in the US and other than Califonia, have I seen open gays welcomed, they may be public, but that dosen't mean accepted. It is only because of a few rallies does it ever ususally even become a public topic, but of course, it had to be an issue as it has always been for candidate to gain votes! Ask any soldier if he really wants to share a room in the barracks with a gay, I can tell you from y experiences only they don't, but then again, I am retired from the military so I have seen some of these issues when they started.

But soldiers have been sharing rooms in barracks with gay soldiers since the day that soldiers were invented. They just don't realise it most of the time.

[Ulysses G.]

Hence, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Jingthing]

Hence, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Happily overturned. What a misguided policy that was. Forcing people to live a lie. It was psychologically cruel and unusual. Mostly only old folks still don't get that American soldiers are brave enough these days to deal with proud, open gay men and women in their midst.

[Jingthing]

There is now evidence that the Obama announcement is moving even more support for legalization of same sex marriage (yes marriage, that word).

Historic poll results. The most optimistic in American history. Why is this news? Because it makes it easier for the supreme court to eventually rule to include gay people in this most basic civil right. The supreme court does not like to be ahead of the public. Now it is clear the public is very nearly quite ready. Exciting times for the American civil rights struggle of our era. The gay one.

Overall, 53 percent of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, hitting a high mark in support while showing a dramatic turnaround from just six years ago, when just 36 percent thought it should be legal. Thirty-nine percent, a new low, say gay marriage should be illegal.

Also of potential significance, movement of black Americans towards gay civil rights, led by the president:

The poll also finds that 59 percent of African Americans say they support same-sex marriage, up from an average of 41 percent in polls leading up to Obama’s announcement of his new position on the matter. Though statistically significant, it is a tentative result because of the relatively small sample of black voters in the poll.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-president-obamas-announcement-opposition-to-gay-marriage-hits-record-low/2012/05/22/gIQAlAYRjU_story.html

[KeyserSoze01]

<deleted>, get over yourself JT. Now where is that emoticon of someone beating a dead horse.

Edited May 24, 2012 by KeyserSoze01

[Jingthing]

<deleted>, get over yourself JT. Now where is that emoticon of someone beating a dead horse.

Oh, and please post a link that shows the majority of US citizens support same-sex marriage.

Last post. I just did. Confirmed in many recent polls, this is the latest. By support, meaning OK with legalization. Doesn't necessarily mean people want to give money to their gay friends to pay for the honeymoon!

The struggle for marriage equality in the US is hardly a dead horse. It is a decades long struggle and even with the public turning dramatically in the last decade, the goal is hardly won. Only history will tell, but this could just be the beginning, or it could happen in 5 or 10 years. No way to know! Romney winning would be a BIG setback.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Jingthing

[KeyserSoze01]

<deleted>, get over yourself JT. Now where is that emoticon of someone beating a dead horse.

Oh, and please post a link that shows the majority of US citizens support same-sex marriage.

Last post. I just did. Confirmed in many recent polls, this is the latest. By support, meaning OK with legalization. Doesn't necessarily mean people want to give money to their gay friends to pay for the honeymoon!

Sorry, just saw that... I am really, really surprised at the Washington Post poll...

[Jingthing]

If you have been following the news lately, you wouldn't be surprised. The polling consensus is definitive and the numbers among YOUNGER Americans are of course much more pro legalization. Why do you think Romney is playing it soft with his reaction to the Obama announcement? Because he knows about this polling too. It's not as easy to win votes by demonizing gay people as it was before.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

It's not as easy to win votes by demonizing gay people as it was before.

When did that happen?

[koheesti]

Historic poll results. The most optimistic in American history. Why is this news? Because it makes it easier for the supreme court to eventually rule to include gay people in this most basic civil right. The supreme court does not like to be ahead of the public.

I disagree. I don't believe the Supreme Court makes judgments based on polls - at least I hope they don't. I believe when this issue gets to the SC they'll make the right ruling on it. That ruling would be in favor of equal rights for same sex couples as traditional couples (visitation, inheritance, etc). Will the SC tell everyone that they must call it "marriage" IMO, no, because terminology has nothing to do with civil rights. They are the Supreme Court, not the Language Police.

[Jingthing]

Historic poll results. The most optimistic in American history. Why is this news? Because it makes it easier for the supreme court to eventually rule to include gay people in this most basic civil right. The supreme court does not like to be ahead of the public.

I disagree. I don't believe the Supreme Court makes judgments based on polls - at least I hope they don't. I believe when this issue gets to the SC they'll make the right ruling on it. That ruling would be in favor of equal rights for same sex couples as traditional couples (visitation, inheritance, etc). Will the SC tell everyone that they must call it "marriage" IMO, no, because terminology has nothing to do with civil rights. They are the Supreme Court, not the Language Police.

The SC doesn't operate in a political vacuum. That's a pure delusion. Obviously, they are removed from everyday political concerns, but being human the ideals you ascribe to them are just that -- ideals. Historically, the SC is almost always well BEHIND the public and I reckon there is a good chance it will be the same for same sex marriage, which means it may take 50 years. As far as the language, marriage, I have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone informed on this issue, with the groundbreaking work of the Bush vs. Gore lawyers, know that the eventual case that is developing is strictly a constitutionally based case against the injustice of denying an entire class of citizens the same MARRIAGE rights as all other citizens. This argument MUST by pure necessity be specifically about marriage. Nothing else works. That is because all 50 states have existing marriage laws already. Only a very few have domestic partner or civil union laws. There is no equality to work for with those other coupling vehicles. With a winning case in the supreme court regarding marriage, all 50 state laws are directly impacted. It's hard to even imagine what the point would be to bring a case about anything other than marriage. Most probably, the court would never even accept such an irrelevant case. Which is academic because nobody would bring it. There is no point to it. The only option at the supreme court level is to argue for marriage equality. Yes, specifically.

If you are suggesting that when (yes when, not if, its that inevitable now) the change is made and there is same sex marriage equality that some people won't call gay people married under the these new laws, which will be 100 percent the same as heterosexual marriages under the law -- well, they have that right of course but it would be legally irrelevant. Not really an issue at all. I can call divorced people married, they're still divorced. You can't legislate against silliness.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Jingthing

[Steely Dan]

Here is an interesting read about the actions taken by the POTUS in relation to gay marriage.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/obamas_marriage_masquerade.html

The future 'evolution' of his views and their implications are of interest.

[koheesti]

Historically, the SC is almost always well BEHIND the public and I reckon there is a good chance it will be the same for same sex marriage, which means it may take 50 years.

In over 200 years, you must be able to give a long list of the times the SC has lagged behind the public. But can you give a few examples from the past 50 years? Scott, I'm not trying to turn this into a history lesson, but it is central to this topic how the Supreme Court would approach this issue. The SC is supposed to rule based on the Constitution, not their own personal feelings. Of course, that might just be the conservative justices who base their rulings on the Constitution and the liberal ones who ignore law and rule "from the heart".

If you are suggesting that when (yes when, not if, its that inevitable now) the change is made and there is same sex marriage equality that some people won't call gay people married under the these new laws, which will be 100 percent the same as heterosexual marriages under the law -- well, they have that right of course but it would be legally irrelevant. Not really an issue at all. I can call divorced people married, they're still divorced. You can't legislate against silliness.

Anyone who is truly in love doesn't care what label you put on their relationship. Of course, we aren't talking about love. We are talking about the transfer of wealth and property to people who have traditionally been considered non-family members. You are free to pretend otherwise of course.

[Jingthing]

Marriage is a multi-tasking institution. You mentioned a few of the tasks it covers. People get married for all kinds of reasons. They may be interested in all of the tasks or for their own reasons none of them. Their choice. In the U.S., that choice is only open with full rights to heterosexuals. A few U.S. states offer same sex marriage but with no national rights. I don't think this is the place to diss people who want to get married, gay or straight. Nobody if forcing anyone to do that, shotguns possibly excepted. For people who don't value marriage, you should be working to making it illegal for everyone, not denying it to one class of citizens and not another.

Justices, both conservative and liberal politically, have sometimes indeed been known to make obviously politically influenced decisions. Bush vs. Gore. / Citizens United

To say it is only liberal justices who do that sometimes is complete tripe.

About the tendency for the court to be behind the times. The is a known phenom for anyone familiar with the court. Not sure why we need to waste time here with the known and obvious.

• Lifetime tenure. Critic Larry Sabato wrote: "The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day."^[182] Sanford Levinson has been critical of justices who stayed in office despite medical deterioration based on longevity.^[194] James MacGregor Burns stated lifelong tenure has "produced a critical time lag, with the Supreme Court institutionally almost always behind the times."^[145] Proposals to solve these problems include term limits for justices, as proposed by Levinson^[195] and Sabato^[182][196] as well as a mandatory retirement age proposed by Richard Epstein.^[197] However, others suggest lifetime tenure brings substantial benefits, such as impartiality and freedom from political pressure. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 wrote "nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office."^[198]

  wiki
  

As far as the politics of the inevitable historic gay marriage equality case, why do you think it hasn't been pushed forward quite yet? While it is true some gay activists want to push it now, MOST find it wiser to wait longer, working to (now successfully) change public opinion, work on baby steps such as legal STATE same sex marriage which are worthless nationally but which move the issue forward as people realize that the world doesn't explode because a few gay people get married. The reason the impulse for the pro same sex civil rights movement is to wait is because the political makeup of the court is well known and understood. Too many right wingers. Get one or two changes, very possible during an Obama second term, and a historic win in the court becomes very likely. If Romney wins and gets those same picks, it could easily delay this inevitable civil rights relief 50 or even 100 years. That's the way it is, like it or not, and to deny and fantasize it is all about high ideals is disingenuous.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Jingthing

[Colin Yai]

http://www.nationmul...y-30183177.html Interesting link ,but free speech should apply to everything ,JT ,any one ? Edited May 30, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Jingthing]

http://www.nationmul...y-30183177.html Interesting link ,but free speech should apply to everything ,JT ,any one ?

Kind of useless, dude, because we don't see the source writing that prompted some people to criticize this guy in the first place. Only the rebuttal.

[Colin Yai]

http://www.nationmul...y-30183177.html Interesting link ,but free speech should apply to everything ,JT ,any one ?

Kind of useless, dude, because we don't see the source writing that prompted some people to criticize this guy in the first place. Only the rebuttal.

I was actually referring to the guys opinion on Gay parades which is in tandem with mine ,I have no objection what so ever with Gay people but I find sometimes the flamboyant exhibitionism in these parades is sometimes a bit OTT .

[Jingthing]

http://www.nationmul...y-30183177.html Interesting link ,but free speech should apply to everything ,JT ,any one ?

Kind of useless, dude, because we don't see the source writing that prompted some people to criticize this guy in the first place. Only the rebuttal.

I was actually referring to the guys opinion on Gay parades which is in tandem with mine ,I have no objection what so ever with Gay people but I find sometimes the flamboyant exhibitionism in these parades is sometimes a bit OTT .

The topic here is clearly about same sex marriage in the United States. It's kind of daft to bring up gay parades in that context. But since you went there, you want to see an OTT parade watch the obscene dancing ladies at Rio carnaval. Let's make straight marriage illegal because of flamboyant straight parades that nobody is making anyone watch, yeah, that's the ticket! Edited May 31, 2012 by Jingthing

[Colin Yai]

http://www.nationmul...y-30183177.html Interesting link ,but free speech should apply to everything ,JT ,any one ?

Kind of useless, dude, because we don't see the source writing that prompted some people to criticize this guy in the first place. Only the rebuttal.

I was actually referring to the guys opinion on Gay parades which is in tandem with mine ,I have no objection what so ever with Gay people but I find sometimes the flamboyant exhibitionism in these parades is sometimes a bit OTT .

The topic here is clearly about same sex marriage in the United States. It's kind of daft to bring up gay parades in that context. But since you went there, you want to see an OTT parade watch the obscene dancing ladies at Rio carnaval. Let's make straight marriage illegal because of flamboyant straight parades that nobody is making anyone watch, yeah, that's the ticket!

Do they not have gay parades in the US? ,which for some is a dead turn off and could well make their "cause" Crusade" unpopular? , even though they have nothing against gays ,I don't have it tattooed on my forehead" I enjoy straight sex " .

[Ulysses G.]

Those seedy parades are a turnoff for most solid citizens for sure, but the "Dykes on Bikes" at the beginning of the San Francisco one are kind of fun.

[chuckd]

JT:

I took your advice and watched some of those horrid Rio parades with the nearly naked women and all.

After only watching 7 hours of them, I concluded you are right. They are disgusting!