President Endorses Gay Marriage

This isn't to say he won't do it, but he has way too much to do to spend a pretty good chunk of political capital on this one issue, this early.

0 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

Sturgis (Post 4977794)
Sturgis wrote:

I'm glad he finally got off his rear and said something; but, I'd have been much happier if he had done so a little sooner. Personally, I am sick of him only doing things when pushed up against the wall. He pulled the same stunt on overturning Don't Ask Don't Tell.

So, it's a victory of sorts; however, not something I'd go overboard with since he still hasn't made a push to make equality of all people something which is federally mandated. Until or unless he starts actually doing that, I will see this as nothing more than a political ploy.

snood wrote:

Yeah, unlike all the action his predecessors took. Oh, wait...

My comments were not about his predecessors. I was commenting directly on how President Obama has conducted himself during these past 3+ years. Don't Ask Don't Tell was an item which he continually avoided, he only went towards the repeal when it became clear there was a large voter base which had supported him in 2008 and had been expecting him to address the matter. Address the matter- that was what I, and many other homosexuals wanted. Instead he stayed silent; and, silence kills.

With regard to marriage and his 'support'; it is a rather tepid support. His questionable timing and his monotone delivery were nice; however, he didn't really address the federal level regarding homosexual marriage. There was no passion in his delivery, he had to say something, either because of VP Biden's comments this Sunday recent, or, if that was a planned event, then because he wants to shore up votes. One does not generally switch their thinking that quickly without some sort of agenda. I want to believe he is being honest and not playing a game; I just don't know. Perhaps if he'd seemed a little more impassioned, as he has on other issues; I'd be more inclined to believe this was real.

2 Replies

All I can say is that I've asked Joe Biden to go on the Washington Sunday Morning shows next week and say that he thinks we should be out of Afghanistan and Guantanamo by the Fourth of July.

Joe(or Memorial Day would be okay too.)Nation

0 Replies

@Sturgis,

Quote:

One does not generally switch their thinking that quickly without some sort of agenda.

Who said it was quickly?

Quote:

however, he didn't really address the federal level regarding homosexual marriage.

There's nothing he can do about it on the Federal level - at all. Other than tell his DoJ not to defend lawsuits against the Defense of Marriage act, which he did a year ago.

The real action on the Federal level regarding marriage equality is in the Legislature, and you can guess how far that's going to go with the current group running the House.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

This sounds right to me:

Quote:

White House and campaign officials have been talking about it for months. According to several sources involved in the campaign, the president was going to make his announcement soon, before the convention (and maybe even very soon) if for no other reason than to avoid a fight over the party platform and to rally gay supporters. Biden stepped on his plan, making it look like the president was backing into a decision and controlled by events.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/05/joseph_biden_s_words_forced_barack_obama_to_support_gay_marriage_sooner_than_he_had_planned_.html

I don't think the Biden part was planned, but I think it helped trigger something that was going to happen very soon anyway.

2 Replies

@Sturgis,

Quote:

My comments were not about his predecessors. I was commenting directly on how President Obama has conducted himself during these past 3+ years. Don't Ask Don't Tell was an item which he continually avoided, he only went towards the repeal when it became clear there was a large voter base which had supported him in 2008 and had been expecting him to address the matter.

He did address the matter. He said his thoughts on it were evolving.

And since so many of us claim we want our politicians to do what we want them to do…is there anything wrong in your eyes with waiting until it becomes clear what the majority of us want?

Quote:

Address the matter- that was what I, and many other homosexuals wanted. Instead he stayed silent; and, silence kills.

He honestly did not stay silent, Sturgis…he said he had not yet decided.

In any case, I can tell you this: If anyone during my life up until this point told me they though a president of the United States would actually come out and say that he favors same sex marriages...I would have thought that person insane. If they had suggested that the president would actually make such a declaration during a run for re-election, I would have suggest voluntary institutionalization.

We have come a long way, Baby!

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

I don't think the Biden part was planned

on Kathy Griffin's feed, she posted an exchange with someone from the Pentagon who said in effect that the "Biden part" was part of the strategy

we'll probably know when someone's memoirs come out someday

0 Replies

By North Carolina just defining marriage as between one man and one woman, what does the LGBT community then define marriage as? Or rather, how would marriage be defined if there was some sort of federal law to make gay marriage legal. I am relating gay marriage to the recent concern by Catholic hospitals about whether they have to afford health care to employees that included birth control and abortions. Meaning, could the federal government then get involved with some gay couple that wanted to get married within a church, yet the church does not marry gay couples?

Will there ever be a gay agenda that included forcing established religions to accept gay marriage? Extrapolating from the general attitude towards the LGBT community only 50 years ago or so, and the venues that gays have normalized their presence, is it not possible that organized religion may be on some future LGBT agenda? I am sure I cannot be the only individual to think these thoughts. I think the gay marriage issue may surprise people as to how divisive it will play out in the future.

I do not see the gay marriage as a solitary issue, but rather part of the compendium of issues that divides liberals and conservatives. Abortion being another big one. That too may be entering a new phase of concern, since the latest epigenetic research is finding that the mother affects the child/future adult as early as conception epigenetically. In effect, the pro-life constituency may soon be seeing "conception as birth," with a more scientific rhetoric?

For those that might see my paragraph above as being off topic, it just might be that some topics, to analyze completely, may not be of a single dimension, and requires a more matrixed analysis.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Meaning, could the federal government then get involved with some gay couple that wanted to get married within a church, yet the church does not marry gay couples?

No.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Foofie wrote:
Meaning, could the federal government then get involved with some gay couple that wanted to get married within a church, yet the church does not marry gay couples?

No.

Is that a subjective "no," or an objective "no"?

1 Reply

@Foofie,

That's a definitive "no."

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

By North Carolina just defining marriage as between one man and one woman, what does the LGBT community then define marriage as? Or rather, how would marriage be defined if there was some sort of federal law to make gay marriage legal. I am relating gay marriage to the recent concern by Catholic hospitals about whether they have to afford health care to employees that included birth control and abortions. Meaning, could the federal government then get involved with some gay couple that wanted to get married within a church, yet the church does not marry gay couples?

Quote:

what does the LGBT community then define marriage as

Two consenting adults getting married.

Quote:

Meaning, could the federal government then get involved with some gay couple that wanted to get married within a church, yet the church does not marry gay couples?

If the married gay couple went to a catholic hospital that is open for the public, then that hospital would have to abide by the same rights for the gay couple as they do straight couples. However, the church would not have to marry them in the church. Least that is the way I see it.

1 Reply

5 pages in, the question begs to be asked

will gay marriage (or rather it's proponents) endorse the president?

0 Replies

Foofie: think about it. Why would anyone want to married in an institution which preaches they are doomed to hell? Seriously.

A better question for you to ask is whether institutions could attempt to refuse insurance coverage for spouses of a single sex marriage? Especially if they had been married in New York and had moved to North Carolina?

(They could not, any more than they could deny coverage to a mixed-race couple or a couple whose ages differed greatly (what? He's 77 and she's 27! The horror!) or a heterosexual couple who revealed on their Facebook page that they did not intend to have any children.)

The next laws to fall will be the adoption laws because there is not a scintilla of evidence which shows that being adopted by a homosexual is harmful to children.

Joe(not none)Nation

1 Reply

@revelette,

do churches in the U.S. have any special tax status/benefits?

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

do churches in the U.S. have any special tax status/benefits?

I believe that if they can establish they are a church ( I suppose by the size of the operation or number of members or some other measure) they get tax-exempt status.

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

Foofie: think about it. Why would anyone want to married in an institution which preaches they are doomed to hell? Seriously...

Some people enjoy crashing parties, even though they are persona non grata. Not that it would be a reason for anyone in particular. It also might be thought of as a way to prove that their "union" has been sanctified by the quintessential anointer of marriage unions? Part of the "normalization" of a one-time pariah segment of society?

In the way of analogy, back in the 1930's Miami was quite overt in some of its hotels not allowing Jewish guests. Well, guess where Jews started to retire. Perhaps, it reflected an attitude that was a reaction to the earlier less than hospitable view of Jewish hotel guests there. Just a human reaction to prior hostility, perhaps?

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:

Foofie: think about it. Why would anyone want to married in an institution which preaches they are doomed to hell? Seriously.

Maybe its some of the same kind of motivation that made minorities join and fight in the armed services of countries that institutionally discriminate against them and oppress them (or want to join any number of other historically unjust organizations like churches). They want to be counted as equal even by the institutions that are demonstrably antipathetic to them.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

I don't think the Biden part was planned, but I think it helped trigger something that was going to happen very soon anyway.

I don't know. Biden's interview looks fairly similar to the usual kind of trial balloon that the Obama administration (and others) routinely float before big announcements. Draft a policy document, leak it, watch the reaction, revise the document if necessary, leak the revision, and repeat until the reaction is what you want it to be. Except there was no policy document to leak this time. Obama's statement, remember, was strictly personal rather than a policy.

0 Replies

One thing we haven't talked about yet is the Republican reaction. I'm struck by how timid it is. Back in 2004, Republican strategists initiated gay-bashing referendums as a way of scoring points and mobilizing the base in the presidential election. Now the worst I see is half-hearted attempts to pillory Obama for flip-flopping. It seems that Republicans, too, have read those polls among swing voters.

1 Reply

President Endorses Gay Marriage

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know