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

[koheesti]

Typical liberal nonsense - making a mountain out of a molehill. Romney only bothered this guy once and no one knew that he was gay. It was one cruel incident in high school. How many of us never did anything stupid in our whole lives?

I made fun of a kid with buck teeth once. I guess I'm burning in liberal hell now too.

[koheesti]

Instead presidential elections will yet again be reduced to these kinds of things.

It is too bad the candidates & especially the main stream media cannot stick to discussing

things that have the greatest impact NOW on this country which is is so much trouble.

Yet instead they will focus on things like this....what happened in high school.....how do they treat their dogs....

Never any pertinent questions for the most part. Really makes one wonder where is the focus these days

I wouldn't say candidates in the plural sense. Romney would be happy to talk about jobs and the economy. Obama is the one running from his record on both those issues like his tail is on fire. And that's very likely what will happen to his tail next November - it'll get fired.

[meand]

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.

Republicans being on the wrong side of history has never hurt them though. Sad but true. Take anything from evolution (25 years ago I noticed anti-evolutionists were highly conservative and extremely illogical) or the more modern and ever more clear global warming..... it just doesn't hurt them, for what reason I have absolutely no idea. But yes, this issue will assuredly be another one to notch under their belt for being wrong about, it has been obvious for many years. But again, as to the down sides of being wrong I just don't see those, unfortunately.

Edited May 11, 2012 by meand

[koheesti]

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).

The majority of Americans are pro gay marriage rights

That is laughable. I do not know own person in the US that is for it. No one hates them for being gay. What is disliked is the constant in your face aggressive, gay agenda. No one I know in the US wants the schools introducing it to students, nor do they want to see anyone marching around at their parades in g-strings and miniskirts waving rainbow flags. There is no need for the shock jock attention whoring. Straight people do not go marching about for normal marriage.

I had a gay roommate back in the 1980's. He "acted normal" and told me that he and others like him didn't like the flamboyant gays because they made life tougher for gays who didn't want to prance around in g-strings waving flags. The "flamers" as they are sometimes called are the ones always used to "scare" the more conservative people which just compounds the resistance. The old aggressive chant, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" was just counter-productive and probably set the gay rights movement backwards. I think anti-gay people out there become more accepting when they meet gays who seem more like themselves - except in the privacy of their bedrooms.

It works the same way with any prejudice. The more people can see how alike they are instead of just the differences, the less prejudiced they'll be.

That said, having a "special" law "allowing" gays to get married to me seems like the wrong approach. There shouldn't be any governmental law for or against any consenting adults getting married. If you're 18 or older, you pay your fee, you get your license, you get married. Good luck and don't come back until you want to pay the fee for the divorce.

[koheesti]

Obama is a typical Left Wing Socialist Politician!!! He will be anything that favors getting a vote, but Biden forced him into this!!! That's one of the best things Biden has done as a VP!!! Only a short 6 months both of them will be packing their bags and the dollar will start returning some value!!! God Bless America!!!

If you think that the dollar is where it is because of Obama and Biden and that it would recover because Romney gets in you have absolutely no grasp on global economics.

Sadly, the dollar sucked before Obama too. The only Hope and Change I was counting on was that somehow with Obama's election somehow the dollar would rebound and I'd have more change in my pocket. Instead, I get a weak dollar, gas prices doubled, tougher job market, but....he personally thinks gays should be allowed to marry! Hmm. Nope. Doesn't help any.

[koheesti]

A tempest in a teapot. What difference does it make? Gays have as much right to go through a divorce and be as miserable as anyone else. In the US, men traditionally get the short end of the stick in a divorce court. Gay divorces will be interesting.

"Gay Divorce Court" TV show will be a top ratings getter for years to come.

[koheesti]

Read this and tell me it wasn't about the money:

____________________________________________________

Clooney's Obama fundraiser gets gay marriage boost

By PATRICK GAVIN | 5/10/12 1:33 PM EDT

Although the White House admitted that Vice President Joe Biden’s comments Sunday in support of gay marriage forced President Barack Obama’s hand, the timing was perfect in at least one regard: A fundraiser tonight at George Clooney’s Los Angeles home will be much friendlier.

“At the beginning of the week, there was this potential for some awkward moments because this fundraiser actually is so small,” said Ted Johnson, the deputy editor of Variety magazine and a longtime observer of the Washington-Hollywood nexus. “They’re designed to actually give the people who are paying $40,000 a piece some face time with the president or to at least have a Q&A. And I think because of what Biden said, this raised the possibility that someone was going to ask him about his position.”

Several of the attendees at Clooney’s fundraiser — including the actor himself — have spoken in favor of gay marriage. Filmmaker Rob Reiner, a board member of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, is helping to finance an effort to legalize same-sex marriage in the state, said Johnson.

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz1uWruJJnH

If I were Clooney I'd be pissed. It is no secret his pet issue is Darfur. Now that will be overshadowed by the whole gay marriage issue.

[koheesti]

Romney's chances are improved with Obama's announcement this week. A lot of black voters who backed Obama are devout believers in the Bible, and may feel he has crossed a line they will not follow him over.

Very, very, very few black voters will change their vote because of this. Blacks are the largest voting block in the country with ZERO power. I say they have zero power because they vote at least 85% for the Democrat EVERY TIME regardless of policy. Other groups can use their vote or withhold it from a candidate depending on what the candidate will do for them. Blacks just give it away for free each time.

Vocal homosexuals are at the same risk. They are a one-issue voting block and their vote is going to Obama now so no reason for another candidate to pay any attention to them. I wrote "Vocal" because there are some gays out there who actually put a priority on important issues like the economy, jobs, healthcare, national defense, war.

Contrast that with the Hispanic voters (even the gun-carrying white variety) - their vote is very much at play and you'll see all candidates trying to win them over. Hispanics would be smart to not universally back one party all the time like blacks so that the candidates have to worry about making them angry.

To me the whole thing is ridiculous, I can't believe they're still talking about gay relationships when theres so many real problems in the world, such as environmental decimation & desease / poverty.

+1

Edited May 11, 2012 by koheesti

[Steely Dan]

I had a gay roommate back in the 1980's. He "acted normal" and told me that he and others like him didn't like the flamboyant gays because they made life tougher for gays who didn't want to prance around in g-strings waving flags. The "flamers" as they are sometimes called are the ones always used to "scare" the more conservative people which just compounds the resistance. The old aggressive chant, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" was just counter-productive and probably set the gay rights movement backwards. I think anti-gay people out there become more accepting when they meet gays who seem more like themselves - except in the privacy of their bedrooms.

It works the same way with any prejudice. The more people can see how alike they are instead of just the differences, the less prejudiced they'll be.

That said, having a "special" law "allowing" gays to get married to me seems like the wrong approach. There shouldn't be any governmental law for or against any consenting adults getting married. If you're 18 or older, you pay your fee, you get your license, you get married. Good luck and don't come back until you want to pay the fee for the divorce.

This is the old 'As long as it's not thrust in my face argument'. Actually I think upsetting the intolerant is for the greater good in the end, though I will concede you are probably right in that such behavior will alienate some folk, but they were probably waiting to be offended anyway.

[DrTuner]

I don't understand why they won't allow people, goats, trees or whatever to enter into an agreement backed by a law, which would grant similar rights as a marriage currently does. Separate the actual word "marriage" to mean whatever ritual people want to have and the problem would be instantly solved. A bit like here with the village wedding and official business being separated. No need to make a huge number out of it.

[koheesti]

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.

Republicans being on the wrong side of history has never hurt them though.

Being on the right side of history hasn't helped them either. The non-Americans here may not know this but The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed over opposition of the Democratic Party. Dem. Al Gore's father was a leader against it. "The Conscious of the Senate" Democrat Robert C. Byrd (and former Kleagle of the KKK) had a 14 hour long filibuster trying to block it. The Civil Rights Act passed because the minority party REPUBLICANS joined President Johnson and some more sensible Democrats in voting in favor of it. So there you have it, blacks today owe their Civil Rights to Republicans, but still vote overwhelmingly for Democrats - even the ones personally responsible for trying to deny them of their rights - and as in Byrd's case, personally involved in lynching them (don't believe for one second that in 1950-60's West Virginia a leader in the KKK wasn't involved in any lynchings). So even if Republicans today end up on the "right side of history", gays will still vote for Democrats in the future for some other reason. Seriously, if Romney came out in favor of Gay Marriage, and Obama stuck with his position as it was last week, does anyone here really think gays would vote for Romney?

Edited May 11, 2012 by koheesti

[meand]

That is laughable. I do not know own person in the US that is for it [gay marriage].

That statement really says nothing except how out of touch you are. Have a look at the figures (or the people you are associating with).

Straight people do not go marching about for normal marriage.

That is just a very odd thing to say. You need to think these statements out better. Why in the world would straight people march around for "normal" marriage?? Next you will be asking us why women aren't out marching for their right to vote.

Edited May 11, 2012 by meand

[Ulysses G.]

Once that we know about. Sorry, but this is a revealing incident. The people making the statements are all respectable pillars of their community

I suggest a closer reading of the original Washington Post article is required. http://www.washingto...ry.html?hpid=z4

I read the entire article and there was only this one incident and the rest of the article makes him sound like a good kid. I have no idea how you can condemn the man on the basis of one cruel childhood prank.

It wasn't just one incident. Also, it takes a real bully to cut off the kid's hair.

According to that article, there was only one significant incident and they cut off the kids long bangs. They did not shave his head. Also no one knew that he was gay. It is amazing what the democrats will sink to in order to try to discredit Romney.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

According to that article, there was only one significant incident and they cut off the kids long bangs. They did not shave his head. Also no one knew that he was gay. It is amazing what the democrats will sink to in order to try to discredit Romney.

You're being disingenuous. OF COURSE they suspected he was gay. Check out the picture. Honestly, don't you think he looks gay? I do. Dude, we grew up in the same country. I'm not fooled and neither is the American public. Romney was, BTW, 18 years old. An ADULT. What he did actually was a serious criminal offense. It was a violent assault. It's really a shame he wasn't brought up on charges for a hate crime:

Today’s revelation, when it comes to high-school antics, couldn’t be much worse. Romney didn’t just bully another kid, who by accounts was new to the school, soft-spoken, and the target of ridicule; he organized a mob of other kids to do it. The Post story indicates that the young man may have been the object of abuse because of rumors he was gay. A story that casts a young Romney as intolerant and without basic empathy for someone who may have been gay is unfortunate the day after Barack Obama made the most empathetic statement in support of gay rights ever made by a sitting president.

http://www.slate.com...gton_post_.html

The other incident we know about was the homophobic VERBAL abuse.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Romney was, BTW, 18 years old. An ADULT. What he did actually was a serious criminal offense. It's really a shame he wasn't brought up on charges for a hate crime:

Geez, way back when Romney was 18 yrs old it was a crime NOT to bully other kids.

[Jingthing]

Romney was, BTW, 18 years old. An ADULT. What he did actually was a serious criminal offense. It's really a shame he wasn't brought up on charges for a hate crime:

Geez, way back when Romney was 18 yrs old it was a crime NOT to bully other kids.

I'm not so sure. Violent assault. Cutting someone's hair against their consent, I am pretty sure WAS a criminal offense at the time. Remember, Romney was of LEGAL age, a full adult at the time of the crime. Of course, culturally, that's a different story. The rich son of a Governor attacks an effeminate kid. Nothing happens. Doesn't make it right. Its wonderful karma that Romney is finally getting pushback for that disgusting crime at this seminal time in his privileged life.

Some of you may think this kind of thing is perfectly fine. Boys will be boys. But consider the high suicide rate of gay youth. Many studies have shown it is just this kind of social stigma that Mitt Romney actively promoted that contributes to the despair of the gay kids leading to suicide. If you've never been bullied brutally as a teenager for being different, maybe you wouldn't get it. I get it.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

According to that article, there was only one significant incident and they cut off the kids long bangs. They did not shave his head. Also no one knew that he was gay. It is amazing what the democrats will sink to in order to try to discredit Romney.

You're being disingenuous. OF COURSE they suspected he was gay. Check out the picture. Honestly, don't you think he looks gay? I do.

No. He looks like young boy with a stupid haircut.

[Jingthing]

Whatever. He looks like the kind of kid that might be bullied to me. Apparently, to Romney to. But he LED the bullying. A LEADER even back then. I really hope he loses even now more than ever. I'll never see him the same now. This is tying in now to the weird act of strapping the dog on the roof of his car. I think there is a mental problem with the man. It made him really get at the corporate vulture job. What a disaster to elect someone like that as president. We've had enough mental illness in the white house after Nixon.

What's his motivation exactly to be president? I'm not feeling it.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[geriatrickid]

1. The assumption that anything close to a majority of Americans are in favour of legal rights for same sex unions is false. The polls are not an accurate indication of actual sentiment. It seems that Americans who will tell pollsters that they are in favour usually will not provide the support when necessary. A case in point is the recent NC vote. Polls had indicated that NC voters would support same sex unions by a majority, but the results were the opposite.

2, The assumption that ethnic groups will desert the Democrats on this issue in droves is false. Although many hispanic and afro american voters do harbour negative views on homosexuality. they are also acutely aware of Republican party positions on other issues that negatively impact them. As well, many of these same religious people have an issue with a non Christian running for President. The end result will be a tradeoff with many voters just not voting. There are gay reoublicans and republicans with gay relatives that may be swayed to vote Democat, just as there are Democrats opposed to same sex unions that will be swayed to vote Republican.

3. Mr. Romney has demonstrated all the characteristics of an elitist prick. I do not condemn him for his job when he was restructuring companies. Sh*t happens. I've lived through ownership by VC companies, and I understand the process. it's not pleasant, but sometimes tough decisions need to be taken to keep a company viable. I do however, dislike him for his smugness. I went to a provate school where people like Mr. Romney attended. Several of my classmates were just like Mr. Romney. Several of my classmates were not. The Romney types never changed, but they sure have a respectable veneer to themselves. A government cannot operate like a business. The reality is that it has to manage the social needs of a population and in effect function as a caregiver and protector. Medicare, social security, food stamps, veterans affairs are all caregiver roles. Defense and Justice are protector roles. Their requirements are very different than those of a profitable business.

There is something very insincere about the man and his inability to ever take a stand that might make him unpopular that should raise a red flag.

[Jingthing]

GK, you've got it REALLY wrong about N.C.

Here is why.

Most voters didn't even KNOW they were voting against recognition of domestic partners.

That was shown in the the polling.

The issue was sold as a vote against recognition of gay MARRIAGE.

N.C. being a SOUTHERN (read right wing) state was going to vote that way.

Due to the weird structure of the measure, the voters had NO CHOICE to approve domestic partnerships and reject gay marriage.

I believe the national polls showing a small majority support legalization of gay marriage and N.C. does nothing to discount those polls.

[Ulysses G.]

The other incident we know about was the homophobic VERBAL abuse.

I'm not sure that saying “Atta girl!” when another student was speaking is all that big a deal. It sure was not in high school in 1965 and the article suggested that teachers in their school talked the same way. When I was in boot camp they used to call us girls all the time and no one got too upset about it.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

The other incident we know about was the homophobic VERBAL abuse.

I'm not sure that saying “Atta girl!” when another student was speaking is all that big a deal. It sure was not in high school in 1965 and the article suggested that teachers in their school talked the same way. When I was in boot camp they used to call us girls all the time and no one got too upset about it.

I agree. Not a big deal. The violent attack. A big deal. He should have been arrested or at least expelled from his school. But now he is paying by having his reputation JUSTIFIABLY tarnished and for that I am glad. Yes this is personal to me. I saw a lot of things in Romney before. Now I see a creepy bully of kids who are different. Not when he was 10. When he was an ADULT. This is a bigger deal than you think. He won't shake this. Edited May 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[geriatrickid]

The other incident we know about was the homophobic VERBAL abuse.

I'm not sure that saying “Atta girl!” when another student was speaking is all that big a deal. It sure was not in high school in 1965 and the article suggested that teachers in their school talked the same way. When I was in boot camp they used to call us girls all the time and no one got too upset about it.

I agree. Not a big deal. The violent attack. A big deal. He should have been arrested or at least expelled from his school. But now he is paying by having his reputation JUSTIFIABLY tarnished and for that I am glad. Yes this is personal to me. I saw a lot of things in Romney before. Now I see a bully of kids who are different. Not when he was 10. When he was an ADULT. This is a bigger deal than you think. He won't shake this.

He'll shake it, because many people won't want to deal with it, the same way they don't want to deal with bullying. It will get some airplay on US talk shows and be forgotten.

I had to laugh when I see some EU and Australian residents discuss this issue, particularly since their countries do not have the legislation in place. Have a look at the EU countries that have laws that support same sex unions.Not too many. Who can forget Ms. Gilliard's statements on the subject. The USA isn't that much dfferent than other countries on the issue.

[Ulysses G.]

This is a bigger deal than you think. He won't shake this.

Sure he will. It is a silly attempt to smear him for something relatively minor that he did in high school in 1965.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

This is a bigger deal than you think. He won't shake this.

Sure he will. It is a silly attempt to smear him for something relatively minor that he did in high school in 1965.

It's not only that. Consider this in the context of Romney's totally spineless response to the way his gay staffer was bullied by anti-gay bigots recently. As in youth so in age. Romney has an anti-gay problem and it's not going away. Yes he can keep the bigot vote but independents and young people will be motivated to reject this kind of thing.

[Ulysses G.]

There is something very insincere about the man and his inability to ever take a stand that might make him unpopular that should raise a red flag.

I did not like him at first, but I have come to admire him. He is intelligent and fast on his feet in the debates. He knows the issues. He is always cool and calm and never seems to get flustered. He has done some impressive things and comes off as a real leader that cares about the country.

He would not be my first choice for President, but he is the best choice of the actual contenders in either party.

[Ulysses G.]

Yes he can keep the bigot vote but independents and young people will be motivated to reject this kind of thing.

If you are saying that he will not get the gay vote, I concur. However, this little high school incident in 1965 will not influence anyone else's vote.

[Jingthing]

Yes he can keep the bigot vote but independents and young people will be motivated to reject this kind of thing.

If you are saying that he will not get the gay vote, I concur. However, this little high school incident in 1965 will not influence anyone else's vote.

No, it's bigger than this. It's his personality. His revolting, non-compassionate personally. He is detached. He grew up rich. He doesn't have the smallest clue about average Americans. This won't appeal to young people or independents. Like I said before, I suspect mental illness. Possibly schizophrenia. Like Dick Nixon.

The picture of Romney's inner self is coming out and it is very, very unattractive. Add this to the dog on the car top to the disgusting way he RECENTLY dealt with his own gay staffer being bullied out of a job by the gay hating right wing.

Or . . . and this is in some degree even worse, the incident meant so little to Romney that I can only conclude that he lacks empathy. He could bully a classmate at the Cranbrook School – cut off his flop of bleached blond hair – and not give it a moment’s thought. This falls into a different category — the-I-love-to- fire-people category, or the down-with-Planned-Parenthood oath he took during the primary fight. He cannot distinguish between losers and victims. They both leave him cold.

http://www.washingto...P1oHU_blog.html

Many Americans are just being introduced to Romney, the person. This is what they're learning. Not nice.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[Scott]

A discussion is one thing. Getting nasty and off-topic is another.

One post deleted and warnings will be issued; so stop while you are ahead.

Edit: Make that several posts deleted.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Scott
note added

[Scott]

Further insinuations that Mr. Romney's bullying behavior is OK will not be allowed and posters will be suspended. The defense of a homophobic bully might cut it with another mod in another thread, but not here and not with me. This topic is about The US president's stand on same-sex marriage.