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

[koheesti]

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.

It's funny, all the experts out there advising what each campaign should do when all that really matters is how the voter feels about what's in his wallet. If they are happy with their job and making money instead of losing it, whoever is in the White House benefits and wins the election every time.

[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.

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

Obama's not going to lose the Latino vote. That's a republican pipe dream. How cynical to think putting the pretty boy right wing Cubano male version of Sarah Palin would win the Latino vote. More respect please!

[Jingthing]

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.

It's funny, all the experts out there advising what each campaign should do when all that really matters is how the voter feels about what's in his wallet. If they are happy with their job and making money instead of losing it, whoever is in the White House benefits and wins the election every time.

Not every time. FDR.

[Jingthing]

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.

But they'll still vote for Obama, at over 90 percent. The issue of course is turnout.

[NovaBlue05]

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.

It's funny, all the experts out there advising what each campaign should do when all that really matters is how the voter feels about what's in his wallet. If they are happy with their job and making money instead of losing it, whoever is in the White House benefits and wins the election every time.

Not every time. FDR.

Different generation. Much less self serving, more accustomed to austerity and more trusting of the Govt than the disasterous boomer generation they spawned.

[Jingthing]

A lot can happen between now and November.

[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.

But they'll still vote for Obama, at over 90 percent. The issue of course is turnout.

I agree.

As I wrote before, this blind loyalty to the Democrats is why blacks have zero political power. NO MATTER WHAT, blacks will vote Democrat by at least 85% and the Republicans know that. No other group has had such tunnel vision in the voting booth and it costs them. If gays decided that they will always vote Democrat, then their pet causes will also suffer. Other political parties (Republicans in this case) need to believe they have a chance at your group's vote otherwise they have no reason to "pander" and make concessions.

[koheesti]

Mr. Obama’s reaction to his plummeting prospects is to claim there’s a media conspiracy against him. This week, his deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter complained “the methodology was significantly biased” in a CBS/New York Times poll that reported 67 percent of Americans believe Mr. Obama’s support for homosexual “marriage” is for political advantage and not because it’s the right thing to do. That’s right, the Obama campaign claims the very liberal New York Times is skewing data to hurt the president.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/15/obamas-inevitable-shellacking/

[Jingthing]

Not a credible source the Washington Times. Run by a Korean cult -- the "Moonies"

[Ulysses G.]

It is based on a New York Times poll. I'm pretty sure that you consider them a "credible source."

[Jingthing]

It is based on a New York Times poll. I'm pretty sure that you consider them a "credible source."

You misunderstood my comment. You're right, I'm not really questioning the NYT poll anymore than any other poll. All are questionable. But I am discounting the snarky TWIST of the extreme far right blatantly anti-gay Moonie owned "newspaper" editorial. Did you notice they referred to homosexual "marriage" with marriage in quotes? That's vile. Edited May 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

It is based on a New York Times poll. I'm pretty sure that you consider them a "credible source."

You misunderstood my comment. You're right, I'm not really questioning the NYT poll anymore than any other poll. All are questionable. But I am discounting the snarky TWIST of the extreme far right blatantly anti-gay Moonie owned "newspaper" editorial. Did you notice they referred to homosexual "marriage" with marriage in quotes? That's vile.

Well, technically it isn't "marriage" yet, is it? Isn't that part of what the issue is all about? Look on the bright side, at least they don't call it "suspected marriage".

Edited May 17, 2012 by koheesti

[Jingthing]

It is based on a New York Times poll. I'm pretty sure that you consider them a "credible source."

You misunderstood my comment. You're right, I'm not really questioning the NYT poll anymore than any other poll. All are questionable. But I am discounting the snarky TWIST of the extreme far right blatantly anti-gay Moonie owned "newspaper" editorial. Did you notice they referred to homosexual "marriage" with marriage in quotes? That's vile.

Well, technically it isn't "marriage" yet, is it? Isn't that part of what the issue is all about? Look on the bright side, at least they don't call it "suspected marriage".

What are you on about? Some states have STATE recognized marriage. ALL 50 states have SEPARATE definitions of marriage. Some states include the right of same sex couples; most sadly do not (a clear case of unfair discrimination against an unpopular minority group, the same as when interracial marriages were banned). Of course these are marriages!

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

(No, they don't enjoy FEDERAL recognition of rights.) Again, such disingenuousness. Its so funny right wingers are so gung ho about "states rights" but when some states do things they don't like, they don't even recognize it as real! You know perfectly well putting marriage in quotes, calling it homosexual and not gay or same sex is blatantly dissing gay people. Also, that rag has a long record of disgusting homophobia. Don't try to deny that, OK, because it would be a waste of time. So would you quote an anti-semitic newspaper on Jewish issues? Maybe some would, but it deserves to be called out for what it is.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Many people do not think that the definition of marriage should be changed from a union between a man and a woman and the Defence of Marriage Act is still the law of the land, so putting marriage in quotes is justified.

[Jingthing]

Many people do not think that the definition of marriage should be changed from a union between a man and a woman and the Defence of Marriage Act is still the law of the land, so putting marriage in quotes is justified.

OMG, the disingenuousness again. It's an epidemic! You know perfectly well that this usage is an editorial policy of this right wing anti-gay newspaper. It's the first time I have seen that in a newspaper. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. It is bigoted and disrespectful, and also factually incorrect. Again, marriage in the United States is defined differently by EACH of the 50 states. Some of the 50 states allow same sex couples to marry. Yes, they are marriages. There are no quotes on the word MARRIAGE in the states that allow same sex MARRIAGES. Yes I am very aware of the bigoted opposition to gay equality out there. But the reality is same sex MARRIAGES do already exist in the U.S. as an objective fact, in SOME states. To use quotes is an insult to gay people.

So let me check, in this case you are against states rights? Is that it? Hilarious.

Yes, opponents of legal same sex marriage are on the wrong side of history just as those bigots who thought it was OK to ban interracial marriages were not that long ago. Yes, gays shall overcome the bigotry some day.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Many people do not think that the definition of marriage should be changed from a union between a man and a woman and the Defence of Marriage Act is still the law of the land, so putting marriage in quotes is justified.

People can marry their pet goat for all I care but they should still expect an odd look or two when they walk down the street together in some areas.

Edited May 17, 2012 by koheesti

[koheesti]

It is based on a New York Times poll. I'm pretty sure that you consider them a "credible source."

You misunderstood my comment. You're right, I'm not really questioning the NYT poll anymore than any other poll. All are questionable. But I am discounting the snarky TWIST of the extreme far right blatantly anti-gay Moonie owned "newspaper" editorial. Did you notice they referred to homosexual "marriage" with marriage in quotes? That's vile.

Well, technically it isn't "marriage" yet, is it? Isn't that part of what the issue is all about? Look on the bright side, at least they don't call it "suspected marriage".

What are you on about? Some states have STATE recognized marriage. ALL 50 states have SEPARATE definitions of marriage. Some states include the right of same sex couples; most sadly do not (a clear case of unfair discrimination against an unpopular minority group, the same as when interracial marriages were banned). Of course these are marriages!

http://en.wikipedia....States_by_state

(No, they don't enjoy FEDERAL recognition of rights.) Again, such disingenuousness. Its so funny right wingers are so gung ho about "states rights" but when some states do things they don't like, they don't even recognize it as real! You know perfectly well putting marriage in quotes, calling it homosexual and not gay or same sex is blatantly dissing gay people. Also, that rag has a long record of disgusting homophobia. Don't try to deny that, OK, because it would be a waste of time. So would you quote an anti-semitic newspaper on Jewish issues? Maybe some would, but it deserves to be called out for what it is.

If you are trying to make it out like I'm some ring wing nut against same sex marriage then you're an . I think two consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation should be able to get married if they want to. Who cares? Well, let me rephrase that, who should really care? They aren't hurting anyone so more power to them. If nothing else it'll create more jobs. Yay.

However, I AM AGAINST government being distracted from important issues that affect 100% of the citizens all the time - and that's what this is. Shame on Mr. Obama for exploiting this issue and using it to distract the American people. Even liberal New Yorkers believe that's the case.

[Ulysses G.]

Citizens have never voted for gay marriage in the US. It has been imposed by activist judges.

[koheesti]

Citizens have never voted for gay marriage in the US. It has been imposed by activist judges.

A fine example of more waste of time, energy and taxpayer money. If a judge can simply overturn something, why go to the trouble of putting it to a vote in the first place? Go straight to court with it and keep it there.

[Jingthing]

Many people do not think that the definition of marriage should be changed from a union between a man and a woman and the Defence of Marriage Act is still the law of the land, so putting marriage in quotes is justified.

People can marry their pet goat for all I care but they should still expect an odd look or two when they walk down the street together in some areas.

Please don't do that. That is the kind of thing people like Rick Santorum does, equate gay people to people into bestiality. That's demonization and it is wrong. Edited May 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Citizens have never voted for gay marriage in the US. It has been imposed by activist judges.

Great!

Let's break this down.

When the SUPREME COURT ruled it unconstitutional for some U.S. states to BAN interracial marriages, do you think these "activist" judges interpreting our constitution overstepped their role? Considering the MAJORITY of people in the states banning those marriages FAVORED the ban? Should the majority have been honored over the supreme court?

Also, today, only a racist would deny that the people who were against "redefining" marriage in the interracial marriage banning states to allow interracial marriage were not bigots.

Am I making my point?

Edited May 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Citizens have never voted for gay marriage in the US. It has been imposed by activist judges.

A fine example of more waste of time, energy and taxpayer money. If a judge can simply overturn something, why go to the trouble of putting it to a vote in the first place? Go straight to court with it and keep it there.

Let's face facts. The same sex marriage issue IS going to be decided (in favor of equality under the law) in the supreme court just as the interracial marriage issue was. As it should be. It's a matter of time now. 10 years, 50 years, who knows, but that's the direction.

[Ulysses G.]

Am I making my point?

No - despite all the spin. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman and keeping that definition has nothing to do with "racism." If you want the same rights and obligations as marriage for a union between two men or twenty without changing the definition of marriage to something that it is not, I am all for it.

[Jingthing]

Am I making my point?

No - despite all the spin. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman and keeping that definition has nothing to do with "racism." If you want the same rights and obligations as marriage for a union between two men or twenty without changing the definition of marriage to something that it is not, I am all for it.

There you go again! We don't want a marriage of 20. That's the same old odious diversionary tactic of slippery slope, let the gays marry, next thing you know someone will want to marry a stapler. No. This is about same sex marriage rights for COUPLES. The same class of issue that was won in the supreme court to overturn the racist bans on interracial marriage in some states.

I'm confident fully your side against constitutional fairness and equality will lose. But I am sad it may take 100 years.

Why am I confident? Simple. A decisive majority of today's younger people support same sex legal marriage. So when the older people die out then eventually the change happens fully reflected in the nation's laws. Sadly this is a slow process and has allowed millions of Americans to be treated as second class citizens for far too long.

My passion on this issue is not personal. Its for future generations.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[JUDAS]

Strange how the most technologically advanced nation on earth can also be so dam_n retarded when it comes to the equality of it's citizens.

[Jingthing]

Strange how the most technologically advanced nation on earth can also be so dam_n retarded when it comes to the equality of it's citizens.

Strange, but no mystery considering we have examples right here of the kind of regressive attitudes that are at the root of the problem. But these types are mostly older people so there is lots of hope (for future generations).

[Ulysses G.]

Having all the same rights as marriage without changing the definition of marriage would seem pretty fair to most people.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Having all the same rights as marriage without changing the definition of marriage would seem pretty fair to most people.

Having all the same rights as marriage without changing the definition of marriage would seem pretty fair to most people.

How do we get that? Let's say the idea of same sex marriage is dropped. Then what?

Will we win civil unions in all 50 states? NO

North Carolina just rejected same sex marriage AND civil unions. So forget the entire SOUTH.

Will the house, senate (60 votes of 100 needed), and president vote to approve all federal rights of marriages to state civil unions? NO (Even if yes, only applies to states that have them! The state that don't have them will likely approve bans in recognizing other state's ones.)

(All states ALREADY have marriage as a legal entity. Only a few have civil unions.)

Will a constitutional AMENDMENT be proposed and passed (needing super majorities) mandating that all states create same sex civil unions and that all federal rights of marriage apply to them?

WHEN PIGS FLY!

A marriage case win in the supreme court? Very possible. There is a clear precedent with interracial marriage. If won, the decision instantly applies to marriage laws (all states have them) in ALL 50 states.

What you propose as fair is actually a trick that gives gays no hope at all for what you say you will accept, basically politically IMPOSSIBLE. Most gays would accept your proposal, but if you actually think about it, a win in the supreme court for full same sex marriage equality is massively more likely to ACTUALLY HAPPEN. No, not with the current justices. Need a few adjustments there. But still that is within the realm of possibility. A constitutional same sex civil union amendment is in the realm of the unimaginable. And that's what we would NEED to enforce what you throw to us as your so called compromise. Thanks for nothing.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[Steely Dan]

Jing,

What if equality under the law was approved, but just with a different name than marriage, would you accept that? I ask because as I see it there are two issues here, one being equality of legal status, the other being using the same terminology for marriage or not doing. The latter as I see it smacks in a way of deliberately upsetting certain religious people who perceive marriage as per what's laid down in their scriptures. Whilst I'm in obvious agreement on the legal equality is the nomenclature that important, especially when gays are openly persecuted in much of the world where mere freedom from persecution is but a distant dream.

[Jingthing]

Jing,

What if equality under the law was approved, but just with a different name than marriage, would you accept that? I ask because as I see it there are two issues here, one being equality of legal status, the other being using the same terminology for marriage or not doing. The latter as I see it smacks in a way of deliberately upsetting certain religious people who perceive marriage as per what's laid down in their scriptures. Whilst I'm in obvious agreement on the legal equality is the nomenclature that important, especially when gays are openly persecuted in much of the world where mere freedom from persecution is but a distant dream.

I have said 100 times on this forum I would be OK with separate but equal as I think the majority of American gays would be just as it was accepted in the UK. But I just explained why that is a fantastically IMPRACTICAL to implement that in the US. Its about there being 50 states with 50 different sets of marriages laws, with a few states having legal civil unions. Nobody is arguing that lots of people aren't freaked out about gays being married. The point is the most obvious, elegant, and quickest path to gay marriage civil rights is with same sex marriage through the supreme court. A favorable ruling then applies to ALL 50 states, wiping out the anti-same sex bans in the many states that have them. There is no supreme court strategy that I have ever heard of where gay people win national same sex civil union rights at the national level. There is no constitutional argument to fight for with civil unions. Most states don't have them and those that do already include same sex.

Read my last post about the mechanical issues and explain to me a practical path to winning separate but equal for all Americans in all states, with federal recognition same as marriage? Seriously, don't you think the professional lobbyists who have been working on this issue for decades haven't thought about this? Do you have a plan that would actually be politically viable and within reach? Let us know, I'll pass it on to the pros working on this, such as the Bush vs. Gore supreme court lawyers. The path that is happening is the path that is most logical and most likely to succeed within 1000 years.

Bottom line: Marriage laws already exist in 50 states. So to fix this injustice, just tweak the marriage laws TOP DOWN from the federal level. That happens with the supreme court.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Jingthing