Obama Supports Same Sex Marriage

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by VegasJustin, May 10, 2012.

  1. VegasJustin

    VegasJustin New Member

    Sep 26, 2011
    On ABC, Obama made history by supporting same sex marriage. Whether or not this was a political move or not, I give Obama credit for doing it. It was only eight years ago that the Republicans used same sex marriage as a wedge issue. Hopefully this announcement brings full equality soon to all couples.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html
  2. dcheather

    dcheather Administrator

    Jul 29, 2005
    Personally he does. He still wants the states to decide.

    http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/pr ... riage.html

    This one instance where I agree with the President, younger voters are a lot more accepting of gay marriage regardless of political party affiliation. I think it's pretty much just a matter of time before more states allow gay marriage.
  3. Clevelandmo

    Clevelandmo Active Member

    Sep 13, 2007
    I never doubted he supported it though, did anyone? If he thinks states should decide I'm not sure that's any progress from eight years ago when numerous states had constitutional amendment votes to ban gay marriage. I dont now how it was in other states, but here in Ohio I dont think it was used as a wedge issue because it didnt get enough attention for decent debate. We banned same sex marriage before we knew what hit us. In other words, I thought it was done rather stealthly.

    Still I understand your sentiment Justin. It is nice to have the leader of your country come out in support of the cause.
  4. VegasJustin

    VegasJustin New Member

    Sep 26, 2011
    I hope the LGBT community continues its push for a plank on the platform supporting this issue on a federal level. I hate when politicians say "I support this, but on a state by state basis". I have a feeling that plank on the Democratic platform will happen though as that community has been relentless in pushing Obama to this point.

    I think it's historic, because it's never happened before. There have been congress people and a few governors support this, but I didn't think I would see an entire administration come out in support so soon after 2004. That election was brutal and Rove really went after anybody who was open to civil unions or any kind of rights for gays and it worked as a strategy. It's good to know that times are a changing.
  5. Clevelandmo

    Clevelandmo Active Member

    Sep 13, 2007
    Justin I dont remember it as a wedge issue and I dont remember Rove going after people over it. At least here in Ohio it was kept remarkably quiet as a ballot issue to the public at large, and was specifically marketed to the Christian right. It appeared to be a strategy to get conservatives who might not normally vote out to the polls. And it did indeed work. The gay/lesbian rights supporters hardly had time to campaign against it. There was also the fact that a lot who voted "yes" thought they were voting in support of same sex marriage rather than against it.

    For Rove and Bush to use that as a campaign issue would have been stupid. I'm not saying they werent complicit in the strategy of it to get the conservative vote out, but was there really any debate on the issue in the presidential election? I dont remember that, but my memory is not what it used to be. I think the majority of Americans are in favor of gay marriage or at least a civil union. If there ever was a real debate on the issue at the presidential level, I think even more Americans would be in favor. Being against same sex marriage is a pretty difficult position to defend in a serious debate, and it is a cop out to say it is a state issue. It is a civil rights issue.
  6. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Mar 18, 2006
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    A couple of comments:

    1. Marriage statutes, like drivers licenses and property taxation, HAS ALWAYS been the purview of the various state governments. That's why the "Constitutional Amendment to Define Marriage as Between a Man and a Woman" never had a legal leg to stand on. It's NOT the job of the national government to make any laws that affect marriage.

    2. I think this was less a political ploy than it was an expression of solidarity. People who are concerned about LGBT rights will not -- regardless of whether this statement was forthcoming or not -- vote Republican as a rule. I doubt this statement got the president any more votes than he'd already get. As a matter of tact, this may cause him to lose a lot of support among the very same black ministers who worked so hard on voter registration and "get out the vote" work in 2008. These ministers have always been in the forefront of opposition to same-sex marriage. I'm not saying that they'll urge their parishoners to vote for Romney; I AM saying that they'll be less inclined to strongly support him.

    This is a potential vote loser for the president, and I'm glad to see that he took the step.
  7. SoCalJoe

    SoCalJoe Well-Known Member

    Sep 5, 2006
    Walnut, CA
    Have to share the comment from an old high school buddy of mine from FB. that made me laugh;

    'Not sure what all the fuss over same sex marriage is about. When I was married I had the same sex over and over and it certainly wasn't worth fighting over'.
  8. VegasJustin

    VegasJustin New Member

    Sep 26, 2011
    That's what I meant Mo. They used it as an issue to get their base out and to possibly suppress some vote for the Democrats in the black community. I remember reading about robocalls in Michigan that were talking about Kerry and gay marriage and they targeted black voters. It was also brought up during a debate where Kerry stupidly brought Cheney's gay daughter into the debate.

    Don, I was watching MSNBC last night and Keith Boykin, former Clinton aide, said that "its a pipe dream to think that the first black president will be abandoned by the black community". Not an exact quote, but pretty damn close to it. I agree with him and I think it would be smart for the Democrats to put this issue on their platform because Mo is right, it's going to be incredibly hard for Romney to say that he's against any kind of unions for gay couples.

    LOL Joe.
  9. MisterF

    MisterF New Member

    Sep 24, 2011
    Columbus, OH
    Long overdue but wonderful news regardless! :clap:
  10. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    You know what... It's BULLSHIT!
    And I blame the right as much as the left on this particular so called issue. I even blame the Tea Parties {sorry, edited for plurality.. there is no 'Tea Party'..even I screw up!} for not coming out and saying "WDGAF about gay marriage"
    You organize a rally for for dual partnership Civil Unions for homo sapien, regardless of gender, color or which is the dominant hand and I'll be right there with ya, screaming for equal partnership rights.
    Would cover all domestic living arrangements. Including Brothers, Sisters, brother-sister, or just good BFF's.
    Because it should have NOTHING to do with sexual preference. Or even the implication that sexual acts are involved.
    The federal government should never have gotten into the marriage sanctioning business in the first place.
    I blame the Utah statehood study committees and the freaking IRS.

    1. If religious groups want to call homosexuality a sin, that is up to them.
    - It's the same as abortion, in that regard. In which I agree with Rome, for the most part.. Or contraception, in which case I'll take up the cudgels against Rome, and before God, to boot.
    But the Fed has no business in it.
    2. Gayness is indeed condemned in the bible.. same as 'fornication'. And for the same reason.. see 'Baal'.
    3 . Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because they were dens of homosexual acts, but because their culture was corrupt and hedonistic. And because they insisted on recognition and participation- Get that? ACCEPTANCE!!!- by those who were chaste and righteous.
    Read the actual chapter and verse.

    No culture in which hedonism is given free and open reign has ever lasted, they always destroy themselves into anarchy.
    That includes EVERY socialist state as well. Blue Laws suddenly 'appear' as if by magic. For the 'Worker Bees', anyway. ;)
    Let's go 'all-in' for socialism and just see what happens.

    If a Christian preacher does NOT have the right to preach against homosexuality as a sin from his pulpit, saying they may forfeit salvation, without being labeled a hater and homophobic, and yes, you must include the Westboro Baptist Inbreds, in that freedom...
    then what will you say about the Muslim preacher across town who advocates for stoning those who are only accused of sodomy?

    Time for the hypocrites to 'smell the coffee' as Ann Landers used to say.
  11. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Mar 18, 2006
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    as clear and consise an argument for the separation of church and state as will be heard anywhere.

    I think that, just for the moment, some "real conservate" showed up on Pettyfog's keyboard.
  12. Clevelandmo

    Clevelandmo Active Member

    Sep 13, 2007
    Yes it was a nice rant, which I much enjoyed.
  13. nevzter

    nevzter Well-Known Member

    Mar 5, 2007
    A City by a Bay

    Missed this one - but a :handgestures-thumbupleft:
Similar Threads: Obama Supports
Forum Title Date
Miscellaneous Obama KNEW!!! Jan 3, 2010
Miscellaneous Obama to Arabs: Buy a Ticket Jun 3, 2009
Miscellaneous Obama Expands Youth Cadre Apr 22, 2009
Miscellaneous Obama and the World Mar 17, 2009
Miscellaneous 'Obama hates White Peepul'! Feb 7, 2009

Share This Page