Gay love
 

Obama just threw a big bet down on the table.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announce...-marriage.html

This might irritate some Dems but Romney could be in a pickle trapped between members of his own party while Obama beats him with a rhetorical bludgeon.

-spence

tell me why this isnt Obama catering to his base? You would slam repubs if they did something similar.

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.

Interesting how this spilled. First with Joe a week ago and now the Pres has come around. Yep - just happened to "evolve" his position right after announcing. How convenient as the Church Lady would say :rotf2:

Personally - I really don't care but this politics as usal from both parties is gettin' old.

If he was catering to his base he would have done it in 2008 but the risk was higher. I think the timing here is more calculated.

Not sure why you're so uppity, we all know you fully endorse gay love :love:

-spence

so basically he is catering to his base when there is less to lose, great.

personally, I endorse love and its not my business who people love or whether its called marriage or not. Marriage between two consenting adults, man or woman should be no concern for the govt as marriage is a legal arrangement and nothing more. If churchs want to ban it, thats their business. Govt should have no say. So I guess that makes me pro-gay marriage.

No, I think it's called well managed organizational change.

Obama took a measured approach to unwind DADT and I think has been very successful. The gay marriage thang is more tricky as it's likely to be more of an issue at the state level but will be a focus in the national debate...

I think it was a good card to play. It's one of those issues that once you get over it you realize it really wasn't worth the fuss in the first place.

-spence

Here's why...

(1) blacks, as a group, hate the idea of gay marriage. They absolutely hate it. It won't make blacks vote for Romney, but it could dampen black enthusiasm.

(2) gay marriage, I believe, has been on the ballot in 32 states, and it has been rejected in 32 states It's only legal in states where judges have ordered it (that was true recently, not sure if it's still true). It's not just tea partiers who are opposed to gay marriage, if it were just tea partiers, how did gay marriage get rejected in California?

I'm shocked he had the courage to stick his neck out. I'll give him credit, because the fact that gay marriage is rejected everywhere, tells me he isn't making as many friends as he's losing.

Ha, ha. If it were someone in the other party, would you be calling it "flip - flop"?

Spence, you should have typed "Gay Marrage" in the subject thread. Looking at the page it reads:

Gay love
spence

And I think this sums up why the WH did this.

This is (from my observations) the opinion of a lot of independent voters. He will force Mitt to respond, how it plays out... :huh: I do think politically it is a gamble, especially with what happened in NC yesterday.

As far as this issue goes, I have yet to hear an argument (excluding churches, which can do as they want) as to why this is such a big deal. I find the marriage of a gay or lesbian couple less deeming to the sanctity of marriage than a quickie Vegas wedding or Kim Kardashian etc... unless we start calling all non-church weddings Civil Unions :huh:

No, Obama has always kept his position as "evolving"...political speak for not the right time.

-spence

Well, it's not rejected everywhere and interestingly enough polls seem to show much more support that state constitutions or laws would indicate.

Bryan nails it, any of us can go online get ordained as a minister and be performing as many perfectly "legal" weddings in 48 states as we'd like. 50% will end in a divorce...

Gay rights is one of those issues where I think the dems come out ahead by leading the charge.

-spence

I think part of the fact that polls show one thing, voting another is, that the folks for it (not the activists) are less passionate to vote on an issue like this than folks against it, largely based on religious beliefs (not a judgement on folks beliefs FYI).

Turn-out pro then, tends to be less than turn-out con, even though they tell a pollster on the phone they think it should be legal.... Jim should be able to marry Fishbones without any problem, even in Texas :D

Again, to quote Jon Stewart from many years ago, "Gay Marriage must be mandatory, why else would anyone give a #^&#^&#^&#^&" (And I use the quote recognizing a churches right to define marriage as they see fit)

For the record, this is one of the things, while I disagree with, I respect Mitt for. This seems to be one of the few issues he has remained true to his core, and is rooted in his faith. Good for him.

Obama had to do something after pissing off the gays, when he failed to fix "don't ask don't tell" for a number of years. Something he promised to do right away.
He is a pandering phony. Although I take Jimmy's position in this also.

OBAMA has been wishie washie since being a senator in Chicargo about same sex marriage....looking for the votes....there goes the electoral votes in SC and probabally in NC with his decision...majority of blacks do not believe in same sex marriages...but we know the majority of the black vote will go to Obama regardless

But, he did get it done. So they can't be too pissed.

Also, it was interesting that this was an opinion in an interview. He didn't propose a mandate and said it still should be left to the states...


I take flippity flop Mitt at his word that he has always been against it, maybe I'll take Obama's word that his position did evolve...

Can you elucidate on those observations? Personally, I have no problems with gay marriage. But gay marriage was flatly rejected by the first 32 states where it was voted on, and that includes California and Oregon. It was rejected in red states, blue states, and purple states.

I see very little support for gay marriage outside of the far left. Which is funny, because that's one of the very, very things I agree with liberals on. But the vast, vast majority of Americans clearly don't want it.

I can only assume Obama said this to energize his base, but it will alienate the independents he needs.

" it's not rejected everywhere "

Spence, in the first 32 states that voted on it, it was shot down. As far as I know, not one state has approved it by vote, it is only legal in places (like CT) where the courts odrered it. They won't vote on it in CT because even here, as blue a state as you can get, it would get shot down.

So when you say it's "not rejected everywhere", I think (I may be wrong) you made that up. Please tell us where it has been approved by voters, not where it was rammed down the public's throat by activist judges?

"polls seem to show much more support "

What polls? Spence, it was rejected in 32 consecutive states, and that includes California and Oregon, for God's sakes.

I actually agree with you on the issue, I'm just stating the facts. You seem to be making stuff up...

In the 2008 election, Obama won California by a huge margin. In that same vote in California, gay marriage was on the ballot. It was rejected. The same folks who came out for Obama, said "no" to gay marriage. I cannot explain that, but it's fact.

I don't think Specne is wrong in saying Polls say one thing. the results of elections saw another. I proposed one idea. Maybe in California it wasn't the case of turn-out, but I do still believe it may be the case in so-called special elections...

For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage

It was inevitable he would come out in favor once he started saying his position was evolving. Maybe got pushed into it a little earlier than he wanted due to Biden. I don't think it will help or hurt him that much either way.

I think there are two reasons.

1) Demographics. I'd wager that younger people are more tolerant of same sex marriage yet they don't turn out in as large of numbers. They also have much less influence over the political debate.

This obviously, is changing.

2) Unity. I'd wager that anti-same sex bills have had less opposition because politicians have tried to distance themselves from the debate. It's also easier to rally against something than rally for it...

That's what's fundamentally different this time around, with the POTUS advocating for equal rights you're likely going to see a lot more Congress people and state representatives coming out of the closet to join Obama. Already today Jack Reed did just that.

Same sex marriage laws have been approved via legislation in Vermont, the District of Columbia, Washington (pending) and Maine where it was delayed.

Yes, in other states it's been through the courts but remember it's only judicial activism when you don't agree ;)

-spence

Gay marriage wasn't delayed in ME. The approved gay marriage law was struck down by public referendum. The law asn't delayed, it was defeated.

"with the POTUS advocating for equal rights you're likely going to see a lot more Congress people and state representatives "

We'll see. While I agree with you on gay marriage, I dobn't think this POTUS has as much weight (especially with non-liberals) as you suspect.

"remember it's only judicial activism when you don't agree ;)"

Not in my case.

i think this hurts Obama slightly more than it helps him. Which means one of two things. Either he is politically brave, or he has stupid advisers.

The only issue I have with gay marriage is this...if you expand the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, by what logic do you not include groups of 3 or 4? Where do you draw the line?

After it was signed into law, it just wasn't implemented.

Politically Obama needs issues he think can motivate the middle. If Romney moves Right on the issue it will irritate independent voters.

Modern ethics in the Western World has clearly settled on monogamy as the norm. In this context it would make no difference if you were taking multiple same sex partners vs heterosexual ones.

They're different issues entirely.

-spence

There ar 16 million baptists in the south and midwest that will not vote for Obama to the person. Ohio and those other swing states are not going to be labeled in the majority for gay marriage under any circumstances. And its not just the baptists who will swing anyway but for Obama. Maybe here in the east and on the very west coast it will work out well for the dems with the gays and lesbians, not in middle America.

"After it was signed into law, it just wasn't implemented."

As usual, you are 100% wrong on the facts. Do you know why it wasn't implemented, in Maine? Because after the politicians signed it into law, the public said "not so fast, we want to vote on this." It went to a public vote, and the public, like they have every single time they have been given a say on this, rejected it. Again, you are not entitled to your own facts. Look it up. I'm right. The politicians didn't decide on their own to delay implementation - the public said "hell, no". And that's in liberal Maine.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/maine...ory?id=8992720

A key quote, if you are interested in truth...

"Voters rejected a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed. The repeal comes just six months after the measure was passed by the Maine legislature and signed by the Democratic Gov. John Baldacci. "



"Politically Obama needs issues he think can motivate the middle."

I agree. However, if gay marriage has been voted on 32 times, and it has been rejected 32 times (32 for 32, that is incredible), please tell me how openly supporting gay marriage helps Obama with independents. You cannot tell me that only radicals oppose gay marriage, not if it has been summarily rejected 32 times in 32 attempts. Few issues have such a consensus. North Carolina is hardly a hardcore conservative state - Obama won there in 2008 - and homosexual marriage was shot down in a rout.

"Modern ethics in the Western World has clearly settled on monogamy as the norm"

I cannot imagine what planet you live on if you think that. I support monogomy, but that puts me in a very small minority. Rick Santorum was crucified for his traditional Catholic beliefs. More than 50% of marriages end in divorce, abortions are up, infidelity is up...Spence, I sincerely wish monogomy was the norm, but that's one of the most demonstrably false things you have ever said. Your side, the liberal side, gets a lot of talking points from Hollywood. Tell me how common monogomy is out there, and in other liberal places.

One other thing about homesexuality. And again, I'm in favor of gay marriage. But a homesexual relationship is not the same thing as a heterosexual relationship, there is a huge, huge difference. One of those unions can produce life, the other cannot. Society cannot exist without heterosexual relationships, therefore society has a vested interest in protecting heterosexual relationships. I do not see homosexual marriage as a threat to traditional marriage, but I can see where someone else might.

And I asked a question that you - once again - chose to ignore. If you expand the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, how can you exclude a threesome? What if 3 consenting adults genuinely love each other? Who are you to say they can't be married? Why don't they have the same rights as the rest of us? Every single argument in favor of gay marriage, every single one, can just as easily be used to support the right of a threesome to be married. I'd love to see you refute that.

HOLY CRAP!!!Lets dumb this thread down.

More than half the country thinks this guy sucks and Election Day is now under six months away.This man will lick the nuts of anyone willing to unzip so as to get as many votes as he can.Its called pandering and its really that simple.How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

Didn't Southern Baptists form the Klan?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device