President Endorses Gay Marriage

Meanwhile, as a Commonwealth country, you do not even own the land of your own country.

There is something that goes back to the Middle Ages whereby the British crown still has hegemony over all land of the Commonwealth nations, I believe. So, you too are part of an empire that has its blemishes in India/Australia/the West Indies, and likely every Commonwealth country that exists.

Do you really think that Canadian WASP's were any less ethically responsible for Britain's political/colonial adventures, as a Commonwealth country, than the U.S.?

So does that statistic verify for you that Obama's announcement carried some political risk for him?

And, where in the bejeebers did I ever suggest that I know gay better than a gay man?

Sturgis came into the thread, expressing the opinion of a Gay Man that didn't line up with your preaching, and you entirely ducked him.

Hey man, I often agree with you: America sucks dude, but you're getting boring. We want to rant along the Democrat's talking points and you keep insisting on entering these threads and interrupting us.

Let's stipulate that America has a long history of being nasty (thanks to all those Rich Fucks) and move on!

Obama is president now and so we have to turn a blind eye toward the assassination of American citizens by predator drones. Likewise, we don't want to talk about his violating the sovereignty of places like Pakistan.

snood wrote:

So does that statistic verify for you that Obama's announcement carried some political risk for him?

Nope. it verifies for me that he is desperate and his usual tricks aren't working quite so well anymore.

snood wrote:

And, where in the bejeebers did I ever suggest that I know gay better than a gay man?

Please spare me the "Who me?" nonsense.

I don't know what "knowing gay" means but you certainly have assumed for yourself the mantle of Protecter of Gay Rights and in the course of your assumed assignment flung around all sorts of "suggestions" about those with whom you disagree.

Sturgis came into the thread, expressing the opinion of a Gay Man that didn't line up with your preaching, and you entirely ducked him.

You're so full of bullcrap you should be condemned as a public health hazard.

Obama's very unpopular stand against the Iraq war when he was a state senator was clearly a stand taken on principle. Others followed suit when the tide of public opinion turned, but for a while his was a lone voice.

And it takes hopelessly sold-out abysmal tools like you to only see a calculated upside to Obama's gay marriage announcement - anyone with half an honest brain can see that it has as much potential potential risk as benefit.

Obama has certainly shown more backbone and willingness to speak unpopular truth in 3 years than, oh say the republican candidate has his whole freakin life.

If he had waited to announce at the convention, you rightwingnuts would say it was political calculation. If he continued to postpone taking a stand inevitably, you'd carp that he wasn't as "hopey changey" as he'd promised. No matter when he took this stand, you'd find a way to pronounce it as empty and useless and bray about how his supporters are naive and gullible.

Conservatives have nothing to be proud of - certainly not this soulless, empty suit whose kool-aid pumping tin heart couldn't muster a strong stand on something if his corporate enslaved life depended on it.

So you sling shyt at the only thing moving at all. It wouldn't be so bad if you could admit that you'd rather yank out your eyeteeth than admit what Obama has done well. You're not only boringly predictable in your denouncements of Obama and his supporters, but your one-note corrosiveness belies an ugliness that can't even see itself.

I know you deny you are the Marburg of Abuzz, but I know better.

That America really, really sucks?

That's JTT's message.

And America does have a history of being nasty; not due to rich folks, but due to greedy folks and bigots. The two are often not the same at all.

Why drag me into your argument, finn?

Sturgis came into the thread, expressing the opinion of a Gay Man that didn't line up with your preaching, and you entirely ducked him.

If he had waited to announce at the convention, you rightwingnuts would say it was political calculation. If he continued to

postpone taking a stand inevitably, you'd carp that he wasn't as "hopey changey" as he'd promised. No matter when he took this stand, you'd find a way to pronounce it as empty and useless and bray about how his supporters are naive and gullible.

Here's the thing snood, I myself am a homosexual male and should by rights be leaping about like a troll being told he just won a lifetime supply of bridges; however, I am not.

What I saw in President Obama's move was politics plain and simple. It was a calculated move and to deny it shows ignorance on your part. Now, if that makes me a rightwingnut then so be it. I do tend a little towards the right at times; however, I have been known to vote Democrat. You and many others prance around with blinders on pretending that all Democrats are saints, all Republicans are evil beasts who must be felled.

Yes, he spoke up; however, I am still not convinced it was real. We have seen President Obama speak on issues and have witnessed a fiery passion. His monotone delivery when speaking of gays having the right to marry was just scripted words exiting his mouth. I heard and saw nothing to even indicate he was alive; a hologram would have been more convincing.

He chose to do this in a one on one interview as opposed to a press conference. Too staged here for my liking.

So, yes, I am glad he said something and I do believe it is a positive step forward for the country; yet, there was something about his timing and even more, there was something lacking in his delivery which has left me cold. Further, I'd not be particularly surprised if come January or February of next year (if he is re-elected), to find him backing away from this as people push for him to work towards legalizing same sex marriage.

Pardon me, because I missed the many posts of yours wherein you told JTT his basic premise was crap,

Thanks Sturgis for explaining about the break in your responses. I think this exchange between us would be a lot more civil if it was just between you and I without the spoutings of those only desirous of contention.

Anyway, I don't think I "prance around thinking all Democrats are saints and all Republicans are evil" or whatever, but I understand that you and I have differing takes on the genuineness of Obama's intentions.

My question to you, though, I still don't think you answered:
Is there any way (or time) Obama could have made his statement so that you wouldn't think it was totally and coldly political?

ROBIN ROBERTS: I'm sure it is. One of the hot button issues because of things that have been said by members of your administration, same-sex marriage. In fact, your press secretary yesterday said he would leave it to you to discuss your personal views on that. So Mr. President, are you still opposed to same-sex marriage?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well-- you know, I have to tell you, as I've said, I've-- I've been going through an evolution on this issue. I've always been adamant that-- gay and lesbian-- Americans should be treated fairly and equally. And that's why in addition to everything we've done in this administration, rolling back Don't Ask, Don't Tell-- so that-- you know, outstanding Americans can serve our country. Whether it's no longer defending the Defense Against Marriage Act, which-- tried to federalize-- what is historically been state law.

I've stood on the side of broader equality for-- the L.G.B.T. community. And I had hesitated on gay marriage-- in part, because I thought civil unions would be sufficient. That that was something that would give people hospital visitation rights and-- other-- elements that we take for granted. And-- I was sensitive to the fact that-- for a lot of people, you know, the-- the word marriage was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs, and so forth.

But I have to tell you that over the course of-- several years, as I talk to friends and family and neighbors. When I think about-- members of my own staff who are incredibly committed, in monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together. When I think about-- those soldiers or airmen or marines or-- sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf-- and yet, feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is gone, because-- they're not able to-- commit themselves in a marriage.

At a certain point, I've just concluded that-- for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that-- I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. Now-- I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has also been I didn't want to nationalize the issue. There's a tendency when I weigh in to think suddenly it becomes political and it becomes polarized.

And what you're seeing is, I think, states working through this issue-- in fits and starts, all across the country. Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that's a healthy process and a healthy debate. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what's recognized as a marriage.

ROBIN ROBERTS: Well, Mr. President, it's-- it's not being worked out on the state level. We saw that Tuesday in North Carolina, the 30th state to announce its ban on gay marriage.