Obama - 'I think same sex couples should be able to get married.'

[Ali]

I'm getting mixed response on whether this was a shrewd political move or political suicide.  After all, there are 31 states with constitutional amendments against gay marriage.

My Southern colleague, some what tongue in cheek, expressed it as "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Albert".  Need to find a good cartoon for this.

I believe the correct phrase is "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" (said with a nasty sneer)     You should tell him if he is going to embrace bigotry, the very least he can do is get the slogan right.

[technolud]

My southern colleague is a she, not a he.  Besides, Adam and Albert has a nice ring too.

As for the bigotry, all southerners understand that the northerners are actually the greater bigots.  We just hide it better.

Living in Arkansas for 7 years was really an eye opener for me, it was the first time I ever really learned to appreciate New Jersey.  Although honestly I find many of the people in this small rural town to be delightful.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I'm getting mixed response on whether this was a shrewd political move or political suicide.  After all, there are 31 states with constitutional amendments against gay marriage.

Those people wouldn't vote for Obama, regardless of his view on gay marriage. If he came out and opposed it, they still likely wouldn't vote for him. He did it to make the liberals and moderates happy.

[technolud]

Yes I agree.  I just hope (pray?) he did himself more good then damage (politically).  I really, really don't want to be saying President Romney.

[ThinkAnarchy]

According to several reports, he raised over $1 million in 90 minutes after flip flopping on this issue.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/gay-marriage-reversal-means-cash-for-obama

Politics as usual, nothing to see here. Move along people.

[Amicale]

According to several reports, he raised over $1 million in 90 minutes after flip flopping on this issue.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/gay-marriage-reversal-means-cash-for-obama

Politics as usual, nothing to see here. Move along people.

Hmm. So just out of curiosity, when he said that he changed his position gradually over time because of his daughter's, family friends and wife's attitudes, did you think he was lying maybe? Or is it possible he really did change his position, but he knows that saying so out loud might happen to provide him with (political or financial) benefits too?

[ThinkAnarchy]

According to several reports, he raised over $1 million in 90 minutes after flip flopping on this issue.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/gay-marriage-reversal-means-cash-for-obama

Politics as usual, nothing to see here. Move along people.

Hmm. So just out of curiosity, when he said that he changed his position gradually over time because of his daughter's, family friends and wife's attitudes, did you think he was lying maybe? Or is it possible he really did change his position, but he knows that saying so out loud might happen to provide him with (political or financial) benefits too?

I have no clue, nor do I really care. It's possible he actually believes gays should be allowed to marry, it's also possible he could care less either way and will simply say what is profitable at the time. It's also possible he has supported it for a while but refrained from saying so due to it being beneficial to hold onto that card. There are many possibilities, but since politicians don't have the best tract record with honesty, his statement about why he changed his position means nothing to me in and of itself.

Also, since he still seems to believe the state has the right to regulate marriage, his statement is utterly useless.

[Firebird]

Yes, I think he was lying. Here's why:

"I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." -- Obama's answer in a questionnaire during his 1996 run for Illinois state Senate

So he went from favoring it to being against it to evolving back to favoring it again. Cowardly? Yes. But I'm willing to cut him some slack, because actions speak louder than words, and he's been very pro gay rights:

- He pushed for and won a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which forbid openly gay men and women from serving in the US Army
- He refuses to defend the "Defense of Marriage Act" in court, which forbids federal recognition of same-sex marriage (though this took a little pushing as well)
- He signed an executive order forcing hospitals to allow gays and lesbians to have non-family visitors and to grant their partners medical power of attorney

Just as a historical comparison, Abraham Lincoln argued against "Negro suffrage", interracial marriage, and allowing blacks to serve on juries when he was campaigning for public office. Yet he's remembered as the president who freed the slaves. Again, actions speak louder in the end.

[ThinkAnarchy]

^^^

So he was lying before in order to ensure the black vote? That is another valid possibility.

[Sweetdeath]

I'm getting mixed response on whether this was a shrewd political move or political suicide.  After all, there are 31 states with constitutional amendments against gay marriage.

My Southern colleague, some what tongue in cheek, expressed it as "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Albert".  Need to find a good cartoon for this.

'God' created nothing, because it doesnt exist.

The same people against same sex love are usually against mixed raced couples  as well. Fuck them.

[Harmonie]

Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?

The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?

The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.

I have to ask. Do you think the issue should be left to the federal government, or taken out of the governments hands entirely?

[Sweetdeath]

Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?

The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.

I think  that his comment is pathetic and useless if he doesnt care what other states do.

This is why i hate the U.S
SO MANY states, each with different laws.

Love , marriage, sex, whatever-- as long as both adults are 18+, let them do as they please, damn it.

[Harmonie]

Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?

The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.

I have to ask. Do you think the issue should be left to the federal government, or taken out of the governments hands entirely?

I thought you'd know this well from reading my posts in the Ron Paul topic: It's a government matter, marriage is a legal contract. Taking it out of the government's hands and putting it into church's and other private institution's hands will just allow for more discrimination and nothing will ever be able to be done about it then.

[Amicale]

Whether it is purely a political move or not, shouldn't we be happy that it was a political move to the good side?

The states' rights stance does worry me very much, but perhaps that will 'evolve' if he wins the election.

I have to ask. Do you think the issue should be left to the federal government, or taken out of the governments hands entirely?

Historically, marriage was almost entirely in the hands of the Church. In some capacity, it's still in the hands of the church symbolically, but not officially. Officially, it's now in the hands of the government, and in my country, that happens to include straight or same-sex couples. I think a lot of us are probably mostly relieved that it's a civil institution now, rather than being a mandated religious one. It'll be a long while before marriage in general is out of the government's hands.

I'm curious though. If it were out of the government's hands, ThinkAnarchy, who if anyone do you think ought to be responsible for it?

The main arguments for marriage (aside from being in love, of course) are to be able to gain protections, rights, and benefits. To be the primary person who has a medical say for an ill partner. To have equal legal custody of children. To receive partner medical benefits. Etc etc. All of these things are currently run by the government, essentially. So... where do we go from here? If not a civil institution, then what should marriage become, for both gay and straight people?

Anyone's welcome to answer this.