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

[tomwct]

Obama will be talking about everything except his record or the economy. That is why the Gay Issue is so important to him. It keeps the Lame (Main) Duck Media talking about Obama except the important issues such as Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs!!! The Messiah has 90% of the US Media backing him and they only want to praise him, so this gives his (Non) track record on the economy or his policies which kill Jobs and devalue the Dollar, no Real News Reporting! Six (6) more months and he'll be packing his bags even with the assistance of the Lame Duck Media! The Silent Minority will be electing the next President and they will vote with their pocketbooks and Jobs!!! Are you better off today than you were 3 1/2 years ago? Yes or No!!! Yes, they will Vote for Obama!!! If No, they will Vote against Obama!!! You decide who will Win in November???

[kirk0233]

It is good to see Obama acting like a democrat, although apparently reluctantly. Of course homosexuals should have the same rights to marry. Marriage is really just a sentimental property agreement. Interesting to see if gays have a higher or lower divorce rate than heterosexuals.

[Jingthing]

It is good to see Obama acting like a democrat, although apparently reluctantly. Of course homosexuals should have the same rights to marry. Marriage is really just a sentimental property agreement. Interesting to see if gays have a higher or lower divorce rate than heterosexuals.

Well, yes, but:

1. Marriage is not required.

2. Federally recognized same sex marriage will come to the USA someday, but it could still be 50 or 100 years from now. Social change in the USA happens very slowly. The laws and courts are always behind the public. Just recently, a slim majority of public opinion is for it. That does not translate to instant results.

3. I don't agree that marriage is ONLY a property agreement. It is an institution with many facets. That is one of them.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

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

There isn't anything honest that spews forth from his mouth. Irregardless of your stance on it he has changed his public statements many times from acceptance to rejection. This statement was to solidify another niche of voters and nothing more. The fact he had a fun raiser at George Clooney's house that night in Hollywood had a lot to do with it. From an estimated take of $10 million to an actual take of $15 in campaign contributions. Those that think he was doing the right thing by making the statement didn't think it through as nothing changed or will change. He then said it was a States rights issue. It has been brought to a vote in 32 States including California and has failed in all 32 States to get it passed by a large margin of the vote. It just brings money in and gets votes from an already solid voting block. He doesn't care about middle class America and has written off their support so it doesn't hurt him there.

I'm a State's Rights kinda guy but we need to admit that putting this issue to a vote is pointless and a waste of money. It seems like every time there is a vote, someone sues and the vote is overturned by the court.

It makes me uncomfortable with the whole process in general (not just on the gay issue) - Let's have a vote and let the People decide, if we don't like the outcome, we will go over their heads and sue to get the vote overturned. It is a waste of time, money, and in the end gets people angry for no reason.

Now, I understand the whole bit about if the majority is for something that is wrong, it is still wrong (like historical attitudes to equal rights, etc). But we can't just keep suing to overturn votes whenever we don't like the outcome. Where is the line drawn? Why can't this gay marriage issue be taken directly to the courts in the first place?

If I were a liberal Democrat I would want to avoid a vote being taken during the presidential election year at all costs. Because it will bring out many more conservative voters than it will gay marriage supporters. It helped defeat Kerry in 2004, and it could do the same to Obama in 2012. Face the facts, there are more religious people who will be mobilized to come out and vote against it than gays who will come out to vote for it. Not to mention that large number of gays are more likely to be found in states that support Obama anyway so it won't help him in the long run. Gays in San Francisco or New York might turn out in record numbers but in Cleveland? Orlando? Pittsburgh?

[koheesti]

It is good to see Obama acting like a democrat, although apparently reluctantly. Of course homosexuals should have the same rights to marry. Marriage is really just a sentimental property agreement. Interesting to see if gays have a higher or lower divorce rate than heterosexuals.

IMO gays would have a much lower divorce rate. Why? Social pressure from the gay community. It has been a long, hard fight so far for gay marriage rights and I can imagine that the gay community as a whole would frown upon couples who get divorced as easily as straights do today. Maybe a generation later after gay marriage is an after thought they will start dumping each other at a whim, but not in the beginning.

[koheesti]

Marriage is really just a sentimental property agreement.

3. I don't agree that marriage is ONLY a property agreement. It is an institution with many facets. That is one of them.

Money is behind just about everything. I can see families being against gay marriage if it means their son's boyfriend can no lay claim to his wealth. Employers or insurance companies would probably prefer not be required to provide health care coverage to former boyfriends or girlfriends who are now called spouses.

For those who see marriage rights about "love", newsflash, you don't need a governmental body to authenticate your love for one another. If you do, you are not in love.

[jshorts]

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.

I disagree.

[Jingthing]

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.

I disagree.

Actually, I am not aware that Obama has EVER explicitly said what you are saying was his position. Yes, he has been pro gay rights, but I seriously doubt you will find any quote from him saying he favors a federally recognized separate but equal gay civil union scheme. Really, he has never said that! In fact, his current "pro gay marriage" position is really weak. He is saying it is up to the states. That's BS because only at the federal level do gays get equal rights, full national recognition, same treatment in tax code, immigration, etc. Don't kind yourself. He knows all that and he really is pro gay marriage equality, and he knows perfectly well it needs to happen at the federal level (supreme court). But he will already pay a price for this current public "evolution"; he doesn't feel he can (or needs to) publicly go further yet. What we need from him are favorable supreme court picks anyway, and that doesn't happen unless he gets a second term.

[koheesti]

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.

I disagree.

Actually, I am not aware that Obama has EVER explicitly said what you are saying was his position. Yes, he has been pro gay rights, but I seriously doubt you will find any quote from him saying he favors a federally recognized separate but equal gay civil union scheme. Really, he has never said that!

Plenty of evolutionary Obama quotes here:

http://glassbooth.or.../gay-rights/15/

""I am a strong supporter, not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of a same-sex union are compatible.""

Edited May 13, 2012 by koheesti

[Jingthing]

OK, that is a good quote, but I'm telling you that will not find a quote saying he favors separate but equal, in other words the EXACT same rights as marriage (there are THOUSANDS of them, it would be a legal nightmare) but just a different word.

[NovaBlue05]

Look at the top leadership in each party. Pelosi, Reid, Schumer...in the Dems & Boehner, McConnell, Cantor in the GOP and tell me that both parties aren't being run by the fringe element within their party. Seems that about a dozen ideological wackjobs dictate how the entire 535 member Congress votes. Maybe they should outlaw political party affiliation altogether for candidates....and establish term limits

And why is it that when a democrat flip flops, the US media calls it "evolving"......?

[Credo]

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

[Steely Dan]

Look at the top leadership in each party. Pelosi, Reid, Schumer...in the Dems & Boehner, McConnell, Cantor in the GOP and tell me that both parties aren't being run by the fringe element within their party. Seems that about a dozen ideological wackjobs dictate how the entire 535 member Congress votes. Maybe they should outlaw political party affiliation altogether for candidates....and establish term limits

And why is it that when a democrat flip flops, the US media calls it "evolving"......?

Revolving would be more accurate.

[Jingthing]

Obama and Romney aren't equivalent on this. Obama's base has ALWAYS known he was pro gay rights. What are Romney's supporters supposed to think? Once he was "more pro gay rights than Ted Kennedy" and today he is a "severe conservative" singing the praises of notorious hate monger Jerry Falwell at "Liberty" University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

[Ulysses G.]

Romney seems to be all for gay rights, but not for changing the definition of marriage.

[Jingthing]

Romney seems to be all for gay rights, but not for changing the definition of marriage.

What gay rights is he for? He let his open gay staffer get hounded out and he didn't defend him. Where are his recent statements about non-disrcrimination for gays in employment, housing, civil unions with the same rights as marriage, etc.? I find it funny when people who haven't experienced being a second class citizen in their own country imagine that just not being criminalized for what you are is enough. Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[NovaBlue05]

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

Edited May 13, 2012 by NovaBlue05

[Jingthing]

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.

[Ulysses G.]

Romney seems to be all for gay rights, but not for changing the definition of marriage.

What gay rights is he for?

He has supported gays serving openly in the military and benefits for gay partners for a long time and even letting gays into the Boy Scouts. He does not believe in changing the definition of marriage.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Romney seems to be all for gay rights, but not for changing the definition of marriage.

What gay rights is he for?

He has supported gays serving openly in the military and benefits for gay partners for a long time and even letting gays into the Boy Scouts. He does not believe in changing the definition of marriage.

So do you right wing people think its fair that a gay couple can be together for 50 years and then one dies and the other isn't entitled to social security survivor benefits? There is no legal structure anywhere that would qualify gay equality for such matters. At least Obama has given voice to support justice for issues like that if not sufficient action. Its clear the Romney not only does not support gay marriage, he does not support civil unions with the same federal implications as marriage. In other words, gays aren't good enough. That is unacceptable. If you were in a class dissed this way, you might understand.

[Ulysses G.]

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.

"He has gay people's back". That is why Mr, Silly Putty waited - for years - until it was politically expedient to admit that he wants something that everyone knows that he wants anyway.

[Ulysses G.]

Romney seems to be all for gay rights, but not for changing the definition of marriage.

What gay rights is he for?

He has supported gays serving openly in the military and benefits for gay partners for a long time and even letting gays into the Boy Scouts. He does not believe in changing the definition of marriage.

So do you right wing people think its fair that a gay couple can be together for 50 years and then one dies and the other isn't entitled to social security survivor benefits?

He called for benefits for gay partners, so no he does not think that it is fair. Just because he does not want to change the definition of marriage does not mean that he does not support gay rights.

[Jingthing]

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.

"He has gay people's back". That is why Mr, Silly Putty waited - for years - until it was politically expedient to admit that he wants something that everyone knows that he wants anyway.

Actually he has done more for gay rights than any president in American history. Marriage isn't the only issue. Also, don't forget the potential supreme court picks. Of course we can expect similar of most any democratic president. If he didn't get elected in the first place, if he doesn't get reelected, he doesn't get the supreme court picks. Like I said before, I wish he hadn't been pushed into this coming out until the second term. It wasn't worth the risk. It doesn't actually further any legislation and it makes his reelection more difficult. Political concerns are part of the process, facts of life. Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[NovaBlue05]

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.

Im in the USA. I flip flop between Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBS and occasionally ABC. Fox is the only one calling it flip flopping. In reality, it's all symbolic as he leaves it to the States to decide. If re-elected, he might try to push a federal civil rights amendment that overrules the states rights but, with 38/50 states having anti gay marraige legislation in place, I doubt he gets it through Congress.

I rather admire him for taking a political risk 6 months from the election even if it was Biden's big mouth that dragged him across the goal line. In doing so, he might have solidified a small constituency that he already had. But he may have also alienated some within his base.....enough to keep them away from the polls.

Im not a Romney fan. Romney isn't Obamas opposition really. If the voters feel the economy is trending up by the fall, then it's a 100% chance he gets re-elected. This social issues don't sway elections, they provide diversions and background noise. With the group they parading out as candidates, the GOP would probably be better off trying to strenghen their position in the House and possibly take or at least gain ground in the Senate and forget about the White House

[Jingthing]

He called for benefits for gay partners, so no he does not think that it is fair. Just because he does not want to change the definition of marriage does not mean that he does not support gay rights.

You're wrong. He has never called for social security survivor benefits for gay couples. Please don't even try to suggest he is a friend of gay rights. Support him if you want but distorting what he is doesn't fly. We aren't stupid. The man spoke at Liberty yesterday and praised one of the most notorious enemies of gay rights in American history. Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

He called for benefits for gay partners. I am not sure if he was specific about social security.

[Jingthing]

He called for benefits for gay partners. I am not sure if he was specific about social security.

I am sure he wasn't. I think you're talking about MILITARY only. I can guarantee you he isn't on record for federal recognition of gay relationships which translates into immigration rights, social security rights, etc. Seriously, no republican like that could ever get nominated these days with liberal positions like that. If you don't believe me, research it, but I guarantee you I'm right on this. Again, no problem with your right to your political views, but BIG problem with trying to paint Romney as something he ain't. Edited May 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[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.

[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.

[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.