Reply With Quote
Thinking this is a play for votes is fine, but explain to me who's vote he's getting from this action that he wasn't going to get before.
Thinking this is a play for votes is fine, but explain to me who's vote he's getting from this action that he wasn't going to get before.
I do think this could help reinvigorate some of the youth vote. It's not that he's pulling votes from Romney, but if he can get some non-voters into the booth again, it can only help.
I just don't see it being significant at all. Not 6 months out from the election. I do think he was getting pressure from GLBT interest groups and I think that was the primary motivation. In the sense that he needs those groups full support this is probably throwing them a bone but its not like any of them were going to support Romney.
I've been a huge critic of Obama, but this move is actually one I see as somewhat genuine because those groups would have had no choice but to support him come November no matter what. That being said, just like DADT this doesn't really matter. Its going to come down to the courts.
Gay marriage just doesn't fit in here:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most...t-problem.aspx
How do sexuals feel knowing that they've been used as pawns by Democrats and Obama? Who's flip flopped more on gay marriage and gay rights: Obama or Willard?
I was surprised with Mitt. He did not go full on Sarah Palin with his response to Obama saying he's cool with s getting married. He apparently has no problem with s having domestic partnerships or being allowed to visit each in the other hospital. I bet that pissed off some hardcore conservatives.
Why can't people just step up and admit that marriage is basically a contract between two people in order to get benefits and personal gain? It's always been about that. Married people get more benefits and special treatment than single people. If you're married, you're considered normal. If you're single then you're not normal.
Leave it up to the states, my, how evolutionary you are Mr Obama.Obama Endorses Marriage Equality... But Not For All
The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. Obama has endorsed marriage equality federalism—not the notion that marriage for gays and lesbians is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Cons ution that can never be taken away. Obama has adopted the same position that Vice President Cheney did in 2004, when Cheney said he believed in marriage equality but that the states should be allowed to decide by a show of hands.
After Obama's announcement, Mother Jones' David Corn spoke with an administration source and asked whether the president recognized gay marriage as a right. The official replied, "He has always said that it is a state issue, and he's not suggesting changing that. He did not support the North Carolina amendment, but he's not saying he will bring up a piece of federal legislation on gay marriage. This is how he feels himself about the issue, and he leaves it to the states."
- more -
"admit that marriage is basically a contract between two people in order to get benefits and personal gain"
just a business/financial deal?
discrimination against people is not a "state" problem. It's a federal problem.
"states rights" is what the racist South/red-states used/uses to claim freedom to discriminate against blacks, and now browns.
Indeed, yes.
He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn't believe they have a right to do so. This is like saying that black children and white children ought to attend the same schools, but if the people of Alabama reject that notion—what are you gonna do?
On this afternoon's special broadcast, Jake Tapper echoed that point: "The president said he thought this was a state-by-state issue."
Well, before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state issue, too. So was slavery. There are 44 states in which gay men and women are currently barred from marrying one another. Obama's position is that, while he would have voted the other way, those 44 states are perfectly within their rights to arbitrarily restrict the access of certain individuals to marriage rights based solely on their sexual orientation.
That is a half-assed, cowardly cop-out.
Equality is not a state-by-state issue. There is no reason other than ignorance and hatred that two men can get married in New York and not North Carolina. At a time when vindictive hucksters are rolling out anti-gay marriage amendments across the nation, and when conflicting state and federal laws portend an insoluble morass of divorce, custody, and estate issues, and when gay Americans are turning to the U.S. Cons ution and the courts to seek an affirmation of their humanity, "it's a state-by-state issue" is a shameful dodge.
Barack Obama’s Bull Gay Marriage Announcement - more -
Its to make sure that many people who might not show up to vote will now do it.
If he waited until 1-2 months before the election it would look even more political and the base might not get excited. Now people will poor in money and volunteers will sign up to help with his reelection. Its q smart move and I see Obama getting a lot out of this personal opinion.
In fact, Obama has not “evolved”—he has changed his position whenever his political fortunes required him to do so. Running for the Illinois state senate from a trendy area of Chicago in 1996, he was for gay marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” he wrote in answer to a questionnaire back then. In 2004, he was running for the U.S. Senate and needed to appeal to voters statewide. So he evolved, and favored civil unions but opposed sexual “marriage.” In 2008, running for president, he said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Now in 2012, facing a tough reelection campaign where he needs energized supporters of gay “marriage” and has disappointed them with his refusal to give them his support, he is for it. To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...lf_644310.html
I realize that it is the Weekly Standard. But it looks like Obama is doing the Cha Cha on the issue of gay marriage.
"facing a tough reelection campaign"
... in Krazy Always-Wrong Kristol's WeeklyStandard's dreams:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...-electoral-map
so why do blacks and latinoes are not in favor? lol cause they make up 95% of the cell inmates, they wont agree to such legislation cause they know if will come back and haunt them if they end up in prison...
No."admit that marriage is basically a contract between two people in order to get benefits and personal gain"
just a business/financial deal?
The government got into the business of marriage to eliminate or control interracial marriage. I say the government should just get out of it. For taxes, each wage earner pays his/her own. For property and decision rights, draw up legal papers.
Cash Pours In For Obama After Same-Sex “Evolution,” No Boost For Romney
While Barack Obama’s dramatic embrace of same-sex marriage Wednesday opened the floodgates of fundraising and enthusiasm for his re-election campaign, it appears to present new challenges for Mitt Romney.
Despite suggestions that the president’s new position would bring out impassioned foes of gay marriage, it is supporters who so far have been most energized by the president’s move.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...or-romney.html
Sure, he gets more campaign dough that he doesn't need and disenfranchises some of his silent supporters.
Probably an overall lose.
Gecko "EVOLVES" very fast
Mitt Romney’s Support Of Same-Sex Adoption Lasts One Day
Among Mitt Romney’s timid responses this week after President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality was an admission that he was “fine” with same-sex couples adopting children, saying, “that’s something that people have a right to do.” But by Friday afternoon, he was already backing away from that position, suggesting that he merely “acknowledges” that many states offer same-sex adoption:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/0...supporting-it/
iow, Gecko's courageous "moral principle" is to follow what the states have overwhelmingly permitted.
oops, that's NOT what the "Christian" Taleban warrior fringe wants to hear.
From reports about money pouring in, it would appear you were right.
Do you also think that that will bring people to the booth who wouldn't have voted, to vote for romney?
From a policy standpoint, nothing changes. He officially says that let the states decide. That was his position the whole time
yeah, right, so civil/state law trumps, conveniently, his fake morals. got it, expediency rules. Not very "Christian" supremacist of him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
