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

[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

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.

Hopefully someday the Supreme Court ruling will look like this...

"Government has no business telling people who they can and can't marry as long as they are both/all adults. Government cannot tell any religious organization who they can or can't marry as long as they are both/all adults. Government can however charge a fee for a license so people deeply in love can have something to hang on their wall to prove to others they are deeply in love. A license so that when they get divorced they can lay claim to half of the other person's wealth. A license so that when one dies, they can lay claim to all that persons wealth."

[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"

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.

It was not a flame at all. You can't say someone has a choice then fight them or belittle them when they make the "wrong" choice.

Believe it or not, there are differing opinions on this issue. NOT everyone believes in their hearts that same sex marriage is a God-given right.

Me, I'm not a fan of marriage in general (like all of us, I've seen too many unhappy couples) but if two adults want to get married, let 'em. But I acknowledge that not everyone sees it the same way. You should too. I just wish government would get out of the way. I wish Obama had said that while he personally supports it, government shouldn't get involved and that there are much more important things the country is facing right now. That probably would have gotten him a lot more votes. So I guess I'm glad he didn't say that.

[Steely Dan]

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>?

But it still ain't working.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/11/poll-obama-learns-what-happens-when-you-ignore-voters

In one, the economy is sputtering and people are anxious about their long-term prospects. Government is borrowing money we can't pay back to prop up a political status quo who's foundation is cracked. At the end of the year, the economy will get a knock-out blow when the largest tax hike in history takes effect. In the other world, though, the economy is just fine and the most pressing issues on voters' minds is whether Billy can marry Bob and if women can get someone else to pay for their birth control. Oh, and in this world, apparently racist, homophobic thugs roam the streets ready to harm gays and minorities.

[koheesti]

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.

And that really stopped them from owning slaves, didn't it?

[Jingthing]

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.

And that really stopped them from owning slaves, didn't it?

We've progressed. What's your point? Do you think Americans are proud of their slave owning era?

[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.

It was not a flame at all. You can't say someone has a choice then fight them or belittle them when they make the "wrong" choice.

Believe it or not, there are differing opinions on this issue. NOT everyone believes in their hearts that same sex marriage is a God-given right.

Me, I'm not a fan of marriage in general (like all of us, I've seen too many unhappy couples) but if two adults want to get married, let 'em. But I acknowledge that not everyone sees it the same way. You should too. I just wish government would get out of the way. I wish Obama had said that while he personally supports it, government shouldn't get involved and that there are much more important things the country is facing right now. That probably would have gotten him a lot more votes. So I guess I'm glad he didn't say that.

OMG! Obama isn't advancing any legislation about this. Didn't you hear? He said its up to the states to decide. Of course he knows very well legal same sex marriages at the state level mean ZILCH for important things at the federal level. In the US, this is a supreme court matter. The game at the state level is just a way of moving the issue forward and forward must ultimately mean the supreme court.

[koheesti]

OMG! Obama isn't advancing any legislation about this. Didn't you hear? He said its up to the states to decide. Of course he knows very well legal same sex marriages at the state level mean ZILCH for important things at the federal level. In the US, this is a supreme court matter. The game at the state level is just a way of moving the issue forward and forward must ultimately mean the supreme court.

Oh, so that's his game. Advance the cause by putting it on the States instead of personally taking the issue to the people - like a leader would have done.

I bet a large majority of the public don't realize that Obama isn't going to actually try to do something and that he was just paying lip service. Kinda like that woman who when Obama won in 2008 thought that he was going to pay for her gasoline and everything else. Some people are just easily fooled and misdirected. They are called "Democrats". OK, seriously, not just Democrats, Republicans just as much.

[Jingthing]

It's not that simple. Obama has advanced gay civil rights in his first term. Don't ask, don't tell ended. Rights for gay federal workers strengthened. He is of course opposed to enforcing DOMA and opposed to a constitutional amendment banning recognition of same sex marriages. He got two supreme court picks which if McCain was there instead would have been right wing picks. One or two more Obama picks in his second term and the odds of winning a historic game changing supreme court case are very good. As far a same sex marriage legislation at the national level, this won't pass, why even introduce it?

[chuckd]

It's not that simple. Obama has advanced gay civil rights in his first term. Don't ask, don't tell ended. Rights for gay federal workers strengthened. He is of course opposed to enforcing DOMA and opposed to a constitutional amendment banning recognition of same sex marriages. He got two supreme court picks which if McCain was there instead would have been right wing picks. One or two more Obama picks in his second term and the odds of winning a historic game changing supreme court case are very good. As far a same sex marriage legislation at the national level, this won't pass, why even introduce it?

I do hope Obama touts his SCOTUS picks in his campaign. That by itself should be worth several million votes for his opponent.

[Jingthing]

It's not that simple. Obama has advanced gay civil rights in his first term. Don't ask, don't tell ended. Rights for gay federal workers strengthened. He is of course opposed to enforcing DOMA and opposed to a constitutional amendment banning recognition of same sex marriages. He got two supreme court picks which if McCain was there instead would have been right wing picks. One or two more Obama picks in his second term and the odds of winning a historic game changing supreme court case are very good. As far a same sex marriage legislation at the national level, this won't pass, why even introduce it?

I do hope Obama touts his SCOTUS picks in his campaign. That by itself should be worth several million votes for his opponent.

It cuts both ways. Informed democratic base voters know about these issues as well.

To wit:

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/10/11641906-marriage-issue-adds-to-supreme-court-election-stakes?lite

I wish more voters would vote based on power to appoint justices, but in real life, not so many do.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[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.

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.

If there is any discrimination, then it is some kind of positive discrimination in favour of men and women want marry each other. if they really want - up to them.

Any one else, those who don't want to marry or prefer to live alone or together with more than one other partner with what ever sexual orientation and whatever gender and so on... they left out.

They still have the option and the choice and no one prohibit or bans them from marry someone in the way marriage is defined above. not to marry this way is a personal decision.

If you want reach equal rights for all, then you should be against any benefits the state offers a married couple. Otherwise it is even if same sex couple are allowed to marry, still a discrimination thing. Discrimination of all other that don't fit into the one monogamous couple thing.

And please don't compare ones sexual orientation and its possible minority status with racial discrimination.

[Jingthing]

...

And please don't compare ones sexual orientation and its possible minority status with racial discrimination.

Why not?

If you are denied housing, employment, marriage rights, spousal survivor benefits, immigration rights, etc. based on sexual orientation, the comparison is perfectly valid. In fact, in the US the gay civil rights movements mirrors the black civil rights movement quite closely. Yes, I know many black Americans oppose gay civil rights. That's their problem but in my view they should know better.

I realize you politely asked please. Sorry, no way.

From one of the most important pioneers of the black civil rights movement in America:

Rep. Lewis: Well, I do not buy that argument. I do not buy that argument. And today I think more than ever before, we have to speak up and speak out to end discrimination based on sexual orientation. Dr. King used to say when people talked about blacks and whites falling in love and getting married — you know one time in the state of Virginia, in my native state of Alabama, in Georgia and other parts of the South, blacks and whites could not fall in love and get married. And Dr. King took a simple argument and said races don’t fall in love and get married. Individuals fall in love and get married. It’s not the business of the federal government, it’s not the business of the state government to tell two individuals that they cannot fall in love and get married. And so I go back to what I said and wrote those lines a few years ago, that I fought too long and too hard against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up and fight and speak out against discrimination based on sexual orientation

.

http://www.boxturtle...2009/01/19/8179

It would have been nice if President Obama as the first black president had been as forthright about this as Rep. Lewis, but compared to every other president (while in office) in history, he's doing great.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

It would seem not all members of Obama's own party support his position on same sex marriages.

____________________________________________________

Vulnerable Democratic senators balk at Obama's gay marriage endorsement

By Alexander Bolton - 05/12/12 08:00 AM ET

Senate Democrats facing difficult reelections are breaking with President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage, a sign the issue is politically dangerous in battleground states.

Sens. Jon Tester (Mont.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.), the two most vulnerable Democratic senators, have declined to endorse Obama’s call for the legalization of gay marriage.

Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Bob Casey (Pa.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.), Democrats who have easier races but in states that could become more competitive by November, have also backed away from Obama’s stance.

http://thehill.com/h...of-gay-marriage

[Jingthing]

Understood. The price of doing the right thing. At least the beginning of the right thing. Nobody said it would be easy.

[chuckd]

Understood. The price of doing the right thing. At least the beginning of the right thing. Nobody said it would be easy.

Agreed. However if enough voters think it was not the right thing to do and it cost him a second term and all those alleged SCOTUS picks, would it still be worth it?

[midas]

Understood. The price of doing the right thing. At least the beginning of the right thing. Nobody said it would be easy.

Agreed. However if enough voters think it was not the right thing to do and it cost him a second term and all those alleged SCOTUS picks, would it still be worth it?

Edited May 14, 2012 by midas

[koheesti]

Racial discrimination is different than sexual orientation discrimination in that racial minorities can't hide in a "closet". A gay person can appear straight to avoid problems whereas a black/Asian/whatever guy can't appear white (or vice versa depending on who and where you are). And, IMHO, I also wouldn't put not being allowed to marry in the same category as being kidnapped from you home, forced to cross the Atlantic Ocean in shackles, cramped in the hull of a wooden ship, split from your family all in order to be sold like animals into slave labor.

[Jingthing]

No, they are not the exact same thing. But enough similarities to be meaningful. Again, refer to Rep. Lewis.

BTW, I humbly suggest that we don't get bogged down with this off topic side discussion. Gay Rights vs. Black Civil Rights. You could go on for days on that side topic alone, and to do so would really be OFF TOPIC.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

No, they are not the exact same thing. But enough similarities to be meaningful. Again, refer to Rep. Lewis.

BTW, I humbly suggest that we don't get bogged down with this off topic side discussion. Gay Rights vs. Black Civil Rights. You could go on for days on that side topic alone, and to do so would really be OFF TOPIC.

Seems like the best way to stay on-topic is to avoid replying to what you write. Aren't you the one who made the comparison in the first place?

On-topic questions for you and anyone else who cares to answer:

Do think Obama's coming out with personal support for same sex marriage will motivate more people to vote for him in battleground states such as Ohio or Florida? Or will it mainly just strengthen him in states where he is likely to win anyway?

Will it motivate more people to vote against him now? Maybe it will be a wash - about the same # will be motivated to vote who are for him as will be those against him?

[Jingthing]

I think in a very close election it will cost him the election. Yes a close election is expected, but talking about an extremely close election. My current prediction is that Obama wins the election and loses the popular vote. I would love to see that of course.

[NovaBlue05]

No, they are not the exact same thing. But enough similarities to be meaningful. Again, refer to Rep. Lewis.

BTW, I humbly suggest that we don't get bogged down with this off topic side discussion. Gay Rights vs. Black Civil Rights. You could go on for days on that side topic alone, and to do so would really be OFF TOPIC.

Seems like the best way to stay on-topic is to avoid replying to what you write. Aren't you the one who made the comparison in the first place?

On-topic questions for you and anyone else who cares to answer:

Do think Obama's coming out with personal support for same sex marriage will motivate more people to vote for him in battleground states such as Ohio or Florida? Or will it mainly just strengthen him in states where he is likely to win anyway?

Will it motivate more people to vote against him now? Maybe it will be a wash - about the same # will be motivated to vote who are for him as will be those against him?

Obama won 2008 because he was able to motivate huge numbers of black voters who wouldn't ordinarily vote and similarly was able to drag the normally apathetic college kids away from their playstations long enough to go to the polls. In 2012, those college kids are unemployed with huge student loan debt and, with the church being a significant part of the black American culture, some of them may start looking at him as the first half-white President.

I suppose Obama could bail out the college kids and tell them he will pay off their student loans if they go to the polls.

[Jingthing]

Last time was a landslide. This time, no landslide. That doesn't mean he will lose. The republicans didn't do themselves any favors nominating the out of touch plutocrat Romney either.

Black voters won't switch to Romney over the gay marriage coming out, BUT turnout will be an issue. Again, Obama isn't going to lose based on the black vote anyway.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[GiHadOrange]

...

And please don't compare ones sexual orientation and its possible minority status with racial discrimination.

Why not?

If you are denied housing, employment, marriage rights, spousal survivor benefits, immigration rights, etc. based on sexual orientation, the comparison is perfectly valid. In fact, in the US the gay civil rights movements mirrors the black civil rights movement quite closely. Yes, I know many black Americans oppose gay civil rights. That's their problem but in my view they should know better.

I realize you politely asked please. Sorry, no way.

Black Americans should know better and that is their problem not yours?

What you are doing is not listen to them and sending them back to the back of the bus. That attitude really piss them off and it has nothing to do with that Black Americans are homophobic as you would might be want to paint it..

Racial discrimination is different than sexual orientation discrimination in that racial minorities can't hide in a "closet". A gay person can appear straight to avoid problems whereas a black/Asian/whatever guy can't appear white (or vice versa depending on who and where you are). And, IMHO, I also wouldn't put not being allowed to marry in the same category as being kidnapped from you home, forced to cross the Atlantic Ocean in shackles, cramped in the hull of a wooden ship, split from your family all in order to be sold like animals into slave labor.

99% right.

What is wrong is that someone would be not allow to marry. Everyone is allowed to marry.

To marry or not to marry is a personal choice. I am not married. My choice. If other men want to marry women, their choice. I feel not discriminated by that or see here any issue that could be compared to the struggle of Rosa Parks.

[NovaBlue05]

Last time was a landslide. This time, no landslide. That doesn't mean he will lose. The republicans didn't do themselves any favors nominating the out of touch plutocrat Romney either.

Black voters won't switch to Romney over the gay marriage coming out, BUT turnout will be an issue. Again, Obama isn't going to lose based on the black vote anyway.

I understand they won't switch Party. The fallout will strictly be in terms of those who simply can't be motivated to go to the polls. Last time was historical. This time around, there's a lot more pain and anxiety out there. Obama can lose easily if he has low voter turnout this time around because I think he's lost the majority of swing voters.

Romney isn't anything to get excited about, but he will do far better than McCain especially if he makes a good VP choice

[NovaBlue05]

Obama can use this as his campaign song. Fleetwood Mac worked for Clinton back in '92

[Jingthing]

Last time was a landslide. This time, no landslide. That doesn't mean he will lose. The republicans didn't do themselves any favors nominating the out of touch plutocrat Romney either.

Black voters won't switch to Romney over the gay marriage coming out, BUT turnout will be an issue. Again, Obama isn't going to lose based on the black vote anyway.

I understand they won't switch Party. The fallout will strictly be in terms of those who simply can't be motivated to go to the polls. Last time was historical. This time around, there's a lot more pain and anxiety out there. Obama can lose easily if he has low voter turnout this time around because I think he's lost the majority of swing voters.

Romney isn't anything to get excited about, but he will do far better than McCain especially if he makes a good VP choice

You're really wrong about the VP pick. Presidents don't win based in their VP pick. The best they can hope for is that the VP doesn't do damage. I reckon Romney is going to pick Rubio. That isn't as brilliant as it may appear, but when he does, you'll see.

[NovaBlue05]

Last time was a landslide. This time, no landslide. That doesn't mean he will lose. The republicans didn't do themselves any favors nominating the out of touch plutocrat Romney either.

Black voters won't switch to Romney over the gay marriage coming out, BUT turnout will be an issue. Again, Obama isn't going to lose based on the black vote anyway.

I understand they won't switch Party. The fallout will strictly be in terms of those who simply can't be motivated to go to the polls. Last time was historical. This time around, there's a lot more pain and anxiety out there. Obama can lose easily if he has low voter turnout this time around because I think he's lost the majority of swing voters.

Romney isn't anything to get excited about, but he will do far better than McCain especially if he makes a good VP choice

You're really wrong about the VP pick. Presidents don't win based in their VP pick. The best they can hope for is that the VP doesn't do damage. I reckon Romney is going to pick Rubio. That isn't as brilliant as it may appear, but when he does, you'll see.

I doubt it would be Rubio. It does need to be someone who is popular in a major swing state though. The fact that Obama/Romney are almost dead even right now in the polls despite obama getting propped up daily by all but one TV media outlet doesn't bode well for an incumbant.

As I said in an earlier post though, it won't be Romney that ultimately decides but rather whether the voters think the economy is trending up. The media tries to convince the public that it's improving, but most of it is based on deception and rope a dope. The US could follow Europe into a full blown recession in the next 6 months if its house of cards economy implodes

[Jingthing]

This we agree on. It's the economy. The VP pick is not important unless the VP pick does damage. OK, I don't know that it will be Rubio of course, but if it is, that pick actually does damage.

[koheesti]

This we agree on. It's the economy. The VP pick is not important unless the VP pick does damage. OK, I don't know that it will be Rubio of course, but if it is, that pick actually does damage.

Sure, if you consider Obama losing Florida and the Hispanic vote damage.

[koheesti]

Obama won 2008 because he was able to motivate huge numbers of black voters who wouldn't ordinarily vote...

Analysts were saying that it was this large black turnout in California that helped defeat the same sex marriage referendum. They showed up to vote for Obama and while in the voting booth, they voted against gay marriage.