President Obama Declares Support for Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

[drob8785]

Is it a political move? It's an election year and he's the sitting President, EVERYTHING he does is political, down to the tie he's wearing. Welcome to politics.

Should he have done this earlier? Absolutely.

Do I believe he was for it, then against it, and now back for it? No. I don't think he's ever been against it.

Am I shocked that the usual suspects who don't like the Presidents are criticizing him for it? No.

Does any of that matter to me? No.

This still puts him WAY ahead of most Republican politicians. I mean, Romney's anti-equality stance this week (no civil unions that give same rights as marriage) puts him to the right of most people on this board.

Again, this wasn't nearly as politically risky of a move as some people are making it out to be.

Romney's road to 270 is through the midwest, and I think his team knows that social issues like gay marriage and birth control are losing topics for Republicans in swing states. He won't win Michigan by slamming gay people -- he wins it by talking about the economy and only the economy.

[Geldo]

Originally Posted by drob8785

It's an election year and he's the sitting President

He's the sitting on the fence President

You can tell the tide must have turned on same-sex marriage when such an ardent popularist gets on the bandwagon....

(In the interests of fair disclosure I hate all politicans and couldn't care less which business puppet gets elected).

[dtc]

Originally Posted by champ76

To help himself dt. Not to help those in North Carolina who opposed the amendment. Not to help anyone in the 31 other states who have adopted similar laws.

He held this position in 1996. He declared his opposition to gay marriage when running for Senate and President. He says nothing different for three and one half years while state after state adopts laws restricting gay marriage. Then when it helps him to do so, he returns to his original position.

I don't call that leadership, or courageous, or anything that merits the praise I've seen and heard in the last 24 hours.

I think I'm in complete agreement with you here. I don't think it's praise worthy or of any significant importance. I think it's the right thing to do and it's about time, but besides that I see it about like letting black people ride the front of the bus.

The failure to provide equality for all of us is what's noteworthy and deserving of comment. That our society is so tied up in this issue tells a great deal about us. Unfortunately, this will go on though we really should do it, get over it and move on.

[mister pc]

Originally Posted by champ76

It's all about the Benjamins.

The Washington Post's Peter Wallsten and Dan Eggen report:

About one in six of Obama’s top campaign “bundlers” are gay, according to a Washington Post review of donor lists...

What's the Post's methodology? "Just counting," Eggen told to me, and added, "I did not engage in any guesswork."

Eggen said the list is made up of bundlers who have raised at least $500,000, some of whom "are very open and are well-known activists in the LGBT community." Last October, Advocate.com ran their own tally and found that "members of the LGBT community" accounted for nearly one in five bundlers above the $500k mark, though Eggen rightly notes that the overall pool of bundlers was smaller at that time, hence the change.
How many Obama bundlers are gay? - POLITICO.com

And if you were in the minority in North Carolina's vote Tuesday, you may wonder about this:

Administration officials who briefed reporters on the president’s decision to make public his support for same-sex marriage said Obama had changed his stance earlier this year. The president and about a half-dozen aides were still deliberating the time and place for the announcement when Biden made his remarks on “Meet the Press.”
Biden Said to Apologize to Obama for Gay Marriage Remarks - Bloomberg

So you as president think this is an historic civil rights issue, a human rights issue, and you're the leader of the free world, yet you keep your believes quiet, waiting, you know, for the right time. Translation, when it would be best for you.

I wonder if Rev. King ever thought that way.

Obama's stated position in 2008 was that he supported gay civil unions, and that committed gay couples should get all the rights associated with marriage (adoption, hospital visitation, etc), but that it would just be called a different word.

Many people, myself included, thought his "nuanced" position on gay marriage was a cop out and indicative of his questionable approach to consensus building, as seen with health care, foreign policy, and everything else. Obama does contortions to find a solution that makes both opposite sides happy, when sometimes he would do better to just come out and support one side of the argument firmly instead of trying to fashion a middle ground for everyone.

However even before offering his belated unequivocal support for gay marraige, Obama has done more for the gay community than any other president in US history. Yet here you are criticizing him for not supporting the gays enough... give me a break. You're one of those people that will find a reason to criticize no matter what he does, it would be comical if it wasn't so predictable.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by drob8785

He won't win Michigan by slamming gay people -- he wins it by talking about the economy and only the economy.

Except that he thought the auto industry, and subsequently a large portion of Michigan's economy, should have gone into the toilet further instead of being supported initially..

But he'll take credit for the fact that they rebounded..

[champ76]

Originally Posted by mister pc

Obama's stated position in 2008 was that he supported gay civil unions, and that committed gay couples should get all the rights associated with marriage (adoption, hospital visitation, etc), but that it would just be called a different word.

Many people, myself included, thought his "nuanced" position on gay marriage was a cop out and indicative of his questionable approach to consensus building, as seen with health care, foreign policy, and everything else. Obama does contortions to find a solution that makes both opposite sides happy, when sometimes he would do better to just come out and support one side of the argument firmly instead of trying to fashion a middle ground for everyone.

However even before offering his belated unequivocal support for gay marraige, Obama has done more for the gay community than any other president in US history. Yet here you are criticizing him for not supporting the gays enough... give me a break. You're one of those people that will find a reason to criticize no matter what he does, it would be comical if it wasn't so predictable.

No, I'm not criticizing the President. I'm criticizing his sycophants for making more of this than it is.

I think he's a cold, calculating politician, which is why his position was one thing in 1996, another in 2008, and back again in 2012. I recognize what he's done for what it is. I feel sorry for those who he might have helped by announcing his new old position months ago, instead of holding back for maximum political advantage. For example, in Minnesota, today they are running ads featuring the Presidents new old position and asking people to stand with him and against a proposed gay marriage law. Folks in North Carolina and elsewhere didn't have that opportunity.

[lapaz]

Originally Posted by champ76

No, I'm not criticizing the President. I'm criticizing his sycophants for making more of this than it is.

I think he's a cold, calculating politician, which is why his position was one thing in 1996, another in 2008, and back again in 2012. I recognize what he's done for what it is. I feel sorry for those who he might have helped by announcing his new old position months ago, instead of holding back for maximum political advantage. For example, in Minnesota, today they are running ads featuring the Presidents new old position and asking people to stand with him and against a proposed gay marriage law. Folks in North Carolina and elsewhere didn't have that opportunity.

Of course Obama is calculating, but never cold. Romney iOS extremely cold, but Obama's life has been dedicated to serving, not ruining people's livelihoods. Can you cite one example of coldness other than ordering the killing of terrorists?

[drob8785]

Originally Posted by champ76

I think he's a cold, calculating politician, which is why his position was one thing in 1996, another in 2008, and back again in 2012. I recognize what he's done for what it is. I feel sorry for those who he might have helped by announcing his new old position months ago, instead of holding back for maximum political advantage. For example, in Minnesota, today they are running ads featuring the Presidents new old position and asking people to stand with him and against a proposed gay marriage law. Folks in North Carolina and elsewhere didn't have that opportunity.

Please tell me, why is doing it this week "holding back for maximum political advantage"?

His hand got forced - Biden (and Duncan) put him in a position where he could no longer hold off the announcement.

Should it have come earlier? Of course. But don't sit here and act like that's why your disappointed.

You're disappointed because you (1) don't like him and (2) he's getting applauded for something. So of course you have to find something to complain about.

Besides, he's running for the Presidency - EVERY candidate running for higher office is a cold and calculating politician. Are you really so ignorant that you think that is a trait unique to Obama?

[Superfan]

Ann romeny not qualified. Obama's daughters qualified. What is the Kool aid flavor this month.

[drob8785]

Originally Posted by Beast

Except that he thought the auto industry, and subsequently a large portion of Michigan's economy, should have gone into the toilet further instead of being supported initially..

But he'll take credit for the fact that they rebounded..

Romney has an uphill battle to win, that is absolutely true.

As it stands right now, even if he picks up OH, FL, NC, VA, IN, he still loses.

He needs to pick off another state from Obama, and it won't come from the West Coast or the Northeast. It needs to come from either the Mid-west (PA, MI, WI) or the remaining swing states - NM, NV, CO, IA, NH.

In none of those states Romney would get a significant bump for running as the anti-gay-marriage-candidate. His only chance for winning is running as the I'll-fix-the-economy-candidate.

[drob8785]

Originally Posted by Superfan

Ann romeny not qualified. Obama's daughters qualified. What is the Kool aid flavor this month.

First off, I stayed away from the whole Romney-Rosen controversy because I thought it was overblown and manufactured.

But your comment is garbage.

Let's look at the actual quotes shall we?

Mitt Romney's quote here. It's an Op-Ed piece, but the quote is accurate.

Originally Posted by Mitt Romney

My wife has the occasion, as you know, to campaign on her own and also with me, and she reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy.

Barack Obama's quote here.

Originally Posted by Barack Obama

You know, Malia and Sasha, they've got friends whose parents are same-sex couples. And I-- you know, there have been times where Michelle and I have been sittin' around the dinner table. And we've been talkin' and-- about their friends and their parents. And Malia and Sasha would-- it wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated differently. It doesn't make sense to them. And-- and frankly-- that's the kind of thing that prompts-- a change of perspective. You know, not wanting to somehow explain to your child why somebody should be treated-- differently, when it comes to-- the eyes of the law.

Do you honestly not see the difference between the two quotes?

[wcklink]

Originally Posted by El Caliente

The kids here like this one. (ENTER THE LEMMINGS FOR THE RED THUMBS)

I think you pulled all 8 of the zombies out of the woodwork on that one. Nice job. I don't consider a post valid unless I get all 8 zombies to red thumb it theses days.

[wcklink]

Originally Posted by RebSaint

This position makes absolutely no sense at all. The "hard" left is going to vote for him anyway, just as much as those on the "hard" right will vote against him.

Winning presidential elections absolutely depends on swing voters in key battleground states. These same voters as I stated earlier, voted for Reagan/Bush II/Clinton twice. None of these presidents even came close to endorsing gay marriage. The Bush campaign used the issue in 2004 to galvanize the Republican base to turn that election--so your claim rests on the position that large amount of swing voters in battleground states have suddenly changed their mind on this issue, especially independents. I think some of these voters have become more amenable to allowing gay marriages, I'm not convinced at all it will benefit Obama politically. In fact, if anything, it could serve to hurt his cause by galvanizing the opposition's base and turning off independent and swing voters who feel strongly about preserving the "sanctity" of marriage.

I don't see a mass of independents or swing voters all of a sudden switching their vote for Obama for taking this position, and it's that vote he needs to win re-election.

The other significant support Obama could make from the announcement would be from Paul supporters, who are more libertarian and agree with a lot of left on social issues. I could see a few Paul supporters cast their vote for Obama because of this issue, but these people will either sit at home or hold their nose and vote for Romney.

They'd vote if they turn out. This is simply to energize the hard left and get them to the polls ploy, not a "get them in my camp" ploy. You're right they're already there and he, both sides actually, need to get their folks to the voting booth, not sitting on the side lines. Thus the announcement after the NC vote rather then when it could have helped. I'm sure this would have had more impact closer to the election, but the moron Joe Biden couldn't control himself forcing Obama to shoot his wad early on this one.

[champ76]

Originally Posted by drob8785

Please tell me, why is doing it this week "holding back for maximum political advantage"?

His hand got forced - Biden (and Duncan) put him in a position where he could no longer hold off the announcement.

Should it have come earlier? Of course. But don't sit here and act like that's why your disappointed.

You're disappointed because you (1) don't like him and (2) he's getting applauded for something. So of course you have to find something to complain about.

Besides, he's running for the Presidency - EVERY candidate running for higher office is a cold and calculating politician. Are you really so ignorant that you think that is a trait unique to Obama?

First, let me ask, is there a post where you don't insult someone with whom you disagree? It's remarkably predictable.

Second, the Obama camp, not me, claimed that Obama reached his new old decision months ago, but was hoping to keep it under wraps until sometime this summer or fall when it would have maximum political impact. Why is he doing it this week? Maybe because his internal polls show him lagging behind Romney, a position he didn't think he would be in at this time. Maybe because his fundraising is lagging, a position he didn't think he would be in at this time. We'll never know until the first book is written after the campaign.

And no, I don't think his playing politics with an issue makes him unique, but neither do I think his announcement makes him special.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Originally Posted by wcklink

I think you pulled all 8 of the zombies out of the woodwork on that one. Nice job. I don't consider a post valid unless I get all 8 zombies to red thumb it theses days.

yes, because anyone who gives you a thumbs-down is brain dead.. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of your posts, or lack thereof.. Keep on keepin' on!!