http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/politics/obama-says-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
QuotePresident Obama on Wednesday ended nearly two years of "evolving" on the issue of same-sex marriage by publicly endorsing it in a television interview, taking a definitive stand on one of the most contentious and politically charged social issues of the day.
"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," Mr. Obama told ABC News in an interview that came after the president faced mounting pressure to clarify his position.
In an election that is all but certain to turn on the slowly recovering economy and its persistently high jobless rate, Mr. Obama's stand nonetheless injects a volatile social issue into the campaign debate and puts him at even sharper odds with his presumptive Republican rival, Mitt Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage and favors an amendment to the United States Constitution to forbid it.
Hours before the president's announcement, Mr. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, restated his opposition to same-sex marriage in an interview with KDVR-TV, a Fox News affiliate in Colorado.
"When these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name," Mr. Romney said. "My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights and the like are appropriate, but that the others are not."
Public support for same-sex marriage is growing at a pace that surprises even professional pollsters as older generations of voters who tend to be strongly opposed are supplanted by younger ones who are just as strongly in favor. Same-sex couples are featured in some of the most popular shows on television, without controversy.
Yet time after time, when the issue is put to voters in states, they have chosen to ban unions between people of the same gender or to defeat measures that would legalize same-sex unions. Just Tuesday, North Carolinians voted overwhelmingly to add a ban to their state constitution, and Republican leaders in the Colorado House blocked a vote on legislation to allow civil unions; North Carolina and Colorado are considered swing states in presidential politics.
Nationwide, according to the pollster Andrew Kohut of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, a plurality of swing voters favors same-sex marriage, 47 percent to 39 percent, and outside the South the margin widens to a majority of 53 percent in favor and 35 percent opposed; in the South, a plurality of 48 percent opposes same-sex marriage. Swing voters generally do not have strong opinions on the subject, Mr. Kohut said, though in the South 30 percent of swing voters say they are strongly opposed.
Supporters of same-sex marriage were quick to praise the president's decision to speak out.
"President Obama's words today will be celebrated by generations to come," said Chad Griffin, the incoming president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group. "For the millions of young gay and lesbian Americans across this nation, President Obama's words provide genuine hope that they will be the first generation to grow up with the freedom to fully pursue the American dream. Marriage — the promise of love, companionship, and family — is basic to the pursuit of that dream."
Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, called the president's statement "a watershed moment in American history" that would aid efforts to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act barring federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York said, "No American president has ever supported a major expansion of civil rights that has not ultimately been adopted by the American people, and I have no doubt that this will be no exception."
Some supporters saw the president's announcement in more political terms.
"For thousands of supporters who donated, canvassed and phone-banked to help elect Barack Obama in 2008, this is a powerful reminder of why we felt so passionately about this president in the first place," said Michael Keegan, president of People for the American Way, a liberal interest group.
"I'm almost in tears," said Steve Clemons, director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan research group. Mr. Clemons, who is gay and was married in California in 2008, said the announcement would ignite progressives at a time when there was some ambivalence on the Democratic left as to how forcefully to support Mr. Obama's re-election bid.
Mr. Clemons compared that ambivalence to that of evangelicals on the Republican right toward Mr. Romney. But now, in one single step, Mr. Obama, at least, has erased any ambivalence his base might feel toward his candidacy, Mr. Clemons said.
Opponents of same-sex marriage said, however, that the president's position would hurt him in November.
"Considering that 10 of the 16 battleground states have marriage amendments that could be overturned by the president's new policy position on marriage, today's announcement almost ensures that marriage will again be a major issue in the presidential election," Tony Perkins, the president of the conservative Family Research Council, said in a statement.
Gary Bauer, president of American Values, a conservative organization that opposes same-sex marriage, faulted Mr. Obama for diverting his attention from the economy.
"Every American who can't find work, whose home is under water or who can't afford to fill up his gas tank should be wondering why the president is spending even one second of his time thinking about how to radically transform the institution of marriage," Mr. Bauer said in a statement. "It's a political move meant to energize his left-wing base and distract Americans from his disastrous economic policies."
Mr. Obama's comments came in an interview with ABC News's Robin Roberts that was arranged by the White House, knowing that Ms. Roberts is a popular correspondent, well-known especially among female viewers as a cancer survivor and among African-Americans, a group in which there is widespread opposition to same-sex marriage.
The interview was intended to be wide-ranging, but it inadvertently became the outlet for Mr. Obama's long-awaited evolution on same-sex marriage in a week that began with the remarks of his vice president, Joseph R. Biden Jr., all but embracing same-sex marriage in an expansive answer to a question on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.
Mr. Biden's well-publicized comments increased the pressure on Mr. Obama to take a stand, with his press secretary, Jay Carney, pummeled with questions from White House reporters. Newspaper editorials, columnists and bloggers assailed the president's ambivalence, demanding clarity before the election. On Tuesday, Mr. Carney signaled that Mr. Obama would soon address the matter.
But the timing was forced on the president in other ways.
On Thursday, Mr. Obama is to attend a fund-raiser in Los Angeles at the home of the actor George Clooney, which is expected to raise about $12 million, much of it from Hollywood people active in the gay-rights cause. On Monday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to speak at a campaign fund-raiser and reception of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Leadership Council in New York City, where the special guest is Ricky Martin, the singer who is gay. On June 6 Mr. Obama is scheduled to return to Los Angeles to speak at a gala benefiting the gay, bisexual and transgender community, with tickets costing up to $25,000. And this summer, Democrats will begin meeting to draft the party's platform for the national convention that will nominate Mr. Obama in September, and some gay-rights activists are pushing to include language endorsing same-sex marriage. The president and his advisers in the White House and at the campaign headquarters in Chicago knew Mr. Obama would repeatedly have to parry questions and criticisms on the issue. That prospect, several Democrats said, suggested that the greater political risk for Mr. Obama was not in coming out for same-sex unions but in appearing to be politically calculating, especially given that most supporters believe he personally has favored same-sex unions.
"He's been on this evolution since November 2010, and it's been getting kind of awkward," said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign. "The word evolution signifies change that has an ending at some point."
Gutsy. Good for him. :)
Yeah, I'm surprised. I know the media was making noise about Biden's comments but I didn't expect Obama to do this. Kudos to him.
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 03:36:27 PM
Yeah, I'm surprised. I know the media was making noise about Biden's comments but I didn't expect Obama to do this. Kudos to him.
He had to shit or get off the pot. The White House press corps was grilling Carney pretty heavily over this.
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2012, 03:38:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 03:36:27 PM
Yeah, I'm surprised. I know the media was making noise about Biden's comments but I didn't expect Obama to do this. Kudos to him.
He had to shit or get off the pot. The White House press corps was grilling Carney pretty heavily over this.
I guess so. I read an article that was a timeline of his statements on the subject and though it said about his evolving position - it seemed at most points he said he struggled with it and his position was evolving as the nation's evolved.
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 03:36:27 PM
Yeah, I'm surprised. I know the media was making noise about Biden's comments but I didn't expect Obama to do this. Kudos to him.
Yeah, I thought he'd be the last Democrat candidate who opposed it, but that he wouldn't ever support it himself. I didn't expect this. I think, regardless of inevitable political motives, that he didn't have to do this and I'm glad he did. Doing it after the NC vote is especially nice :)
Maybe Obama's mind is the average of all American minds? That would explain why he is so ineffectual.
Are no-sex marriages legal in America?
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 03:40:23 PM
I guess so. I read an article that was a timeline of his statements on the subject and though it said about his evolving position - it seemed at most points he said he struggled with it and his position was evolving as thenation's polling numbers evolved.
Fixed
Remember, he was opposed to Gitmo before he was for Gitmo. Obama and Romney stand on principle in the same way: on a swivel.
Quote from: Scipio on May 09, 2012, 03:58:15 PM
Remember, he was opposed to Gitmo before he was for Gitmo. Obama and Romney stand on principle in the same way: on a swivel.
When a principle is wrong, I'm glad to see it sacrificed.
Quote from: Scipio on May 09, 2012, 03:58:15 PM
Remember, he was opposed to Gitmo before he was for Gitmo. Obama and Romney stand on principle in the same way: on a swivel.
Well, the difference is that Obama says he's thought about it and his position has changed. Romney just claims he always had whatever his current position is (see his changes on the auto industry bailouts for example).
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: Scipio on May 09, 2012, 03:58:15 PM
Remember, he was opposed to Gitmo before he was for Gitmo. Obama and Romney stand on principle in the same way: on a swivel.
When a principle is wrong, I'm glad to see it sacrificed.
The Log Cabin Republicans (surprisingly) slammed Obama on this, by the way.
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 04:02:39 PM
Well, the difference is that Obama says he's thought about it and his position has changed.
Yes-- he even mentioned that he talked to his family about it :cry:
He's such a deep, thoughtful man.
Log Cabin Republicans are a joke. I mean, I know BDSM is fun, but keep it in the bedroom and out of the politics, please.
Log Cabin Republicans are yesterday's news. The cool group is GOProud.
Same shit. They invited Ann Coulter to their convention. :wtfux:
In their defence they thought she was a drag act.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2012, 04:37:28 PM
In their defence they thought she was a drag act.
Easy mistake to make. The chick has an Adam's apple.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2012, 04:37:28 PM
In their defence they thought she was a drag act.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2012, 04:07:50 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 04:02:39 PM
Well, the difference is that Obama says he's thought about it and his position has changed.
Yes-- he even mentioned that he talked to his family about it :cry:
He's such a deep, thoughtful man.
Still better than Romney's 2008-2010: - I am/ was against any kind of bail out for the auto industry; 2012: I always advocated a managed transition for the auto industry and take credit for the fact it's recovering now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2012, 04:37:28 PM
In their defence they thought she was a drag act.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 04:03:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: Scipio on May 09, 2012, 03:58:15 PM
Remember, he was opposed to Gitmo before he was for Gitmo. Obama and Romney stand on principle in the same way: on a swivel.
When a principle is wrong, I'm glad to see it sacrificed.
The Log Cabin Republicans (surprisingly) slammed Obama on this, by the way.
What else is new? Party affiliation matters, personal issues don't.
So will this help his re-election or not?
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 04:03:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: Scipio on May 09, 2012, 03:58:15 PM
Remember, he was opposed to Gitmo before he was for Gitmo. Obama and Romney stand on principle in the same way: on a swivel.
When a principle is wrong, I'm glad to see it sacrificed.
The Log Cabin Republicans (surprisingly) slammed Obama on this, by the way.
That's because Obama said that marriage should be decided upon by the states. Judge Andrew Napolitano presented a good, brief analysis of Obama's position here contrasted with the USSC's decision in Loving v. Virginia. Obama has not stated that gay marriage is a fundamental right; thus, he is agreeing implicitly that straight marriage is superior to gay marriage before the law.
Quote from: Josephus on May 09, 2012, 05:24:38 PM
So will this help his re-election or not?
Probably not, but I doubt states like Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina were going to go his way this time regardless of his stance on gay marriage. Florida seems like it'd be the most tolerant of the purple states that he needs to win, so maybe he'll be able to squeak by with a win.
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 04:52:00 PM
Still better than Romney's 2008-2010: - I am/ was against any kind of bail out for the auto industry; 2012: I always advocated a managed transition for the auto industry and take credit for the fact it's recovering now.
:unsure:
Last sound bite I heard from Mitt on the auto bailout was it should have run through normal bankruptcy without a government handout for Obama's union buddies.
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 03:20:49 PM"The word evolution signifies change that has an ending at some point."
It does?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2012, 05:36:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 04:52:00 PM
Still better than Romney's 2008-2010: - I am/ was against any kind of bail out for the auto industry; 2012: I always advocated a managed transition for the auto industry and take credit for the fact it's recovering now.
:unsure:
Last sound bite I heard from Mitt on the auto bailout was it should have run through normal bankruptcy without a government handout for Obama's union buddies.
You obviously didn't get the memo: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2012/05/08/mitt-romney-takes-credit-for-the-auto-bailout-say-what/
Quote from: Romney" My own view, by the way, was that the auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help. And frankly, that's finally what the president did. He finally took them through bankruptcy. That was the right course I argued for from the very beginning. It was the UAW and the president that delayed the idea of bankruptcy. I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet. So I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry's come back."
Compare with:
Quote from: RomneyIf General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won't go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-05-08/politics/31618435_1_auto-bailout-mitt-romney-auto-industry
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2012, 05:36:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 04:52:00 PM
Still better than Romney's 2008-2010: - I am/ was against any kind of bail out for the auto industry; 2012: I always advocated a managed transition for the auto industry and take credit for the fact it's recovering now.
:unsure:
Last sound bite I heard from Mitt on the auto bailout was it should have run through normal bankruptcy without a government handout for Obama's union buddies.
QuoteMy own view, by the way, was that the auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help, and frankly that's finally what the President did," Romney said during an interview with ABC News' Cleveland affiliate WEWS on Monday. "He took them through bankruptcy. That was the right course I argued for from the very beginning. It was the AW and the President that delayed the idea of bankruptcy."
"I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy, and finally when that was done and help was given, the companies got back on their feet, so I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry's come back," Romney told WEWS.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/romney-takes-credit-for-auto-industry-turnaround-reignites-bailout-debate/
The bankruptcy and reorganization succeeded because of the government's aid which Romney opposed. If all his point was that the auto industry should go into bankruptcy, then what's his point?
Quote from: Fate on May 09, 2012, 05:35:42 PM
Probably not, but I doubt states like Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina were going to go his way this time regardless of his stance on gay marriage. Florida seems like it'd be the most tolerant of the purple states that he needs to win, so maybe he'll be able to squeak by with a win.
Hrm. This article makes some interesting points:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/09/obama-nothing-to-fear-backing-marriage-equality
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2012, 05:36:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 04:52:00 PM
Still better than Romney's 2008-2010: - I am/ was against any kind of bail out for the auto industry; 2012: I always advocated a managed transition for the auto industry and take credit for the fact it's recovering now.
:unsure:
Last sound bite I heard from Mitt on the auto bailout was it should have run through normal bankruptcy without a government handout for Obama's union buddies.
You need to renew your subscription to GOP talking points, Yi.
Obama did the right thing here. He should have done it earlier, but kudos to him for finally being honest about how he feels about this issue. If he integrates this into his re-election platform, I may feel compelled to vote for him. :)
Current Obama front page:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftowleroad.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d8341c730253ef0163056a1b1b970d-500wi&hash=2e7d11c1bd0148db4719c90cd73b839c04d5ba7d)
Havent read the article and dont care to.
It's only a matter of time, much to the chagrin of the right wing religious fundy's. The Gay's will win the fight.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 09:56:27 PM
It's only a matter of time, much to the chagrin of the right wing religious fundy's. The Gay's will win the fight.
MSNBC was reporting that, in the first hour after the news was announced, O's campaign received over $1million in contributions.
And don't discount the religious fundies. The ones that were going to stay home in Mittapathy are now going to arrive in droves at the voting booth to stop the Federal War Of Northern Aggression On Marriage.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 09:56:27 PM
Havent read the article and dont care to.
It's only a matter of time, much to the chagrin of the right wing religious fundy's. The Gay's will win the fight.
Yeah - I personally felt that civil unions were the way to go, but whatever. War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 10:01:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 09:56:27 PM
Havent read the article and dont care to.
It's only a matter of time, much to the chagrin of the right wing religious fundy's. The Gay's will win the fight.
Yeah - I personally felt that civil unions were the way to go, but whatever. War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Separate but equal is lovely.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:00:19 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 09:56:27 PM
It's only a matter of time, much to the chagrin of the right wing religious fundy's. The Gay's will win the fight.
MSNBC was reporting that, in the first hour after the news was announced, O's campaign received over $1million in contributions.
Of course. Men without children have money.
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 10:07:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:00:19 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 09:56:27 PM
It's only a matter of time, much to the chagrin of the right wing religious fundy's. The Gay's will win the fight.
MSNBC was reporting that, in the first hour after the news was announced, O's campaign received over $1million in contributions.
Of course. Men without children have money.
Goddamned right we do.
:unsure:
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 10:06:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 10:01:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 09:56:27 PM
Havent read the article and dont care to.
It's only a matter of time, much to the chagrin of the right wing religious fundy's. The Gay's will win the fight.
Yeah - I personally felt that civil unions were the way to go, but whatever. War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Separate but equal is lovely.
I think you missed the key part of my post...
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 10:07:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:00:19 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 09:56:27 PM
It's only a matter of time, much to the chagrin of the right wing religious fundy's. The Gay's will win the fight.
MSNBC was reporting that, in the first hour after the news was announced, O's campaign received over $1million in contributions.
Of course. Men without children have money.
:(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:07:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 10:07:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:00:19 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 09:56:27 PM
It's only a matter of time, much to the chagrin of the right wing religious fundy's. The Gay's will win the fight.
MSNBC was reporting that, in the first hour after the news was announced, O's campaign received over $1million in contributions.
Of course. Men without children have money.
Goddamned right we do.
:unsure:
:cheers:
And the sound bite being given by Mitt is not only anti-gay marriage, but also anti-civil union, which is absolutely fucking mind-boggling. This is 2012, not 1812.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 10:07:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 10:06:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 10:01:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 09:56:27 PM
Havent read the article and dont care to.
It's only a matter of time, much to the chagrin of the right wing religious fundy's. The Gay's will win the fight.
Yeah - I personally felt that civil unions were the way to go, but whatever. War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Separate but equal is lovely.
I think you missed the key part of my post...
I found your antiquated/defunct views more relevant than the recognition that the culture war is over.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2012, 10:11:34 PM
And the sound bite being given by Mitt is not only anti-gay marriage, but also anti-civil union, which is absolutely fucking mind-boggling. This is 2012, not 1812.
What else can he do if he wants his party to show up in November?
I'm a Southerner who supports gay marriage. How embarrassing. :(
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 09, 2012, 10:13:45 PM
I'm a Southerner who supports gay marriage. How embarrassing. :(
It's called a redeeming quality. Roll with it, buddy. :hug:
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 09, 2012, 10:13:45 PM
I'm a Southerner who supports gay marriage. How embarrassing. :(
You let your roomie bareback you yet, Geishaboi?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2012, 10:11:34 PM
And the sound bite being given by Mitt is not only anti-gay marriage, but also anti-civil union, which is absolutely fucking mind-boggling. This is 2012, not 1812.
In terms of Mitt and the gays it's the treatment of his spokesman that I find most disappointing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2012, 10:37:11 PM
In terms of Mitt and the gays it's the treatment of his spokesman that I find most disappointing.
He sure practices what he preaches, doesn't he?
Hell yes, that pun was intended.
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 10:06:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 10:01:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 09:56:27 PM
Havent read the article and dont care to.
It's only a matter of time, much to the chagrin of the right wing religious fundy's. The Gay's will win the fight.
Yeah - I personally felt that civil unions were the way to go, but whatever. War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Separate but equal is lovely.
Not equal. Gays are less.
Quote from: Caliga on May 09, 2012, 06:37:20 PM
Obama did the right thing here. He should have done it earlier, but kudos to him for finally being honest about how he feels about this issue. If he integrates this into his re-election platform, I may feel compelled to vote for him. :)
:cheers: :yeah:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2012, 10:37:11 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2012, 10:11:34 PM
And the sound bite being given by Mitt is not only anti-gay marriage, but also anti-civil union, which is absolutely fucking mind-boggling. This is 2012, not 1812.
In terms of Mitt and the gays it's the treatment of his spokesman that I find most disappointing.
I don't see why: he jettisons policy platforms pretty damned easily, why should people be any different?
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 10:01:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 09:56:27 PM
Havent read the article and dont care to.
It's only a matter of time, much to the chagrin of the right wing religious fundy's. The Gay's will win the fight.
Yeah - I personally felt that civil unions were the way to go, but whatever. War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
I've always thought this as well, upper moral hand (get religion out of the picture) easier for more to swallow, inclusive of hetro's.
I don't have religious hang-ups, so I don't care if it's called a "marriage" just want equal rights under the law for a relationship.
I also don't find this solution not equal, but understand those who do. I just never have?
That said I'm delighted Obama made his comments, very big and ballsy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 11:12:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2012, 10:37:11 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2012, 10:11:34 PM
And the sound bite being given by Mitt is not only anti-gay marriage, but also anti-civil union, which is absolutely fucking mind-boggling. This is 2012, not 1812.
In terms of Mitt and the gays it's the treatment of his spokesman that I find most disappointing.
I don't see why: he jettisons policy platforms pretty damned easily, why should people be any different?
:lol:
The thing I found really angered me was that the guy's a foreign policy spokesman he organised a conference call of Romney spokesmen and the media on a foreign policy speech. It seemed odd to journos that he then didn't speak. Apparently he'd been instructed by higher-ups in the Romney campaign that he shouldn't speak. The campaign didn't want to fire him, apparently they said they valued his input they just didn't want him speaking to anyone, or for a spokesman, doing his job. I thought that story was just unbelievable.
I think that sort of cowardice from a campaign is disgusting and, to be honest, I don't see how any gay people could support the Republicans this time round, especially given that Romney's a 'moderate'.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 10:01:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 09:56:27 PM
Havent read the article and dont care to.
It's only a matter of time, much to the chagrin of the right wing religious fundy's. The Gay's will win the fight.
Yeah - I personally felt that civil unions were the way to go, but whatever. War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
I really didn't see the difference. I think individual churches can refuse to marry same sex couples if they want to. That's their choice and it should be protected. To be honest I don't really care that much about it. It's one of those issues that doesn't really affect the machinery of government.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2012, 11:25:54 PM
I really didn't see the difference. I think individual churches can refuse to marry same sex couples if they want to. That's their choice and it should be protected. To be honest I don't really care that much about it. It's one of those issues that doesn't really affect the machinery of government.
We're moving to marriage. The problem with civil unions is that Churches are banned from performing gay marriages, so even the liberal ones can't do it.
Plus you start getting angry atheist straight couples agitating for straight civil unions. Better to just have marriage.
Okay. Like I said, I really don't care much.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2012, 11:23:53 PM
I think that sort of cowardice from a campaign is disgusting and, to be honest, I don't see how any gay people could support the Republicans this time round, especially given that Romney's a 'moderate'.
What I think most hilarious about this little crisis of Mitt's campaign was that the very same right-wing goof that yelled the loudest about Grenell, Bryan Fischer, also gave him shit for caving in to the pressure afterwards. :lol:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/bryan-fischer
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 09, 2012, 10:13:45 PM
I'm a Southerner who supports gay marriage. How embarrassing. :(
Recreational fabulousness will do that.
I'll not be so foolish as to let my own feelings on the matter keep me from doing the wrong thing. Like Southerners of old, I shall rally around the flag and support my region as it holds to practices and beliefs discredited elsewhere and act without regard for my own self-interest because i've been duped by a populist nationalism. "My country, right or wrong!" is an important mantra when your country insists on being wrong more often than not.
It's so delicious!
Edit: On that note, I think Alabama's state motto Audemus jura nostre defendere is old and busted. Working replacement is Audemus jura privare. What do you think, languish?
I wonder when gay marriage will stop being a political issue, rehashed during every elections? Will Republicans drop it as a point once it gets passed nationally, or do you think they will make attempts for a while to reverse it?
Quote from: Martinus on May 10, 2012, 01:40:17 AM
I wonder when gay marriage will stop being a political issue, rehashed during every elections? Will Republicans drop it as a point once it gets passed nationally, or do you think they will make attempts for a while to reverse it?
Reverse it.
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2012, 03:41:55 PM
Are no-sex marriages legal in America?
They're both legal and common.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2012, 11:25:54 PM
It's one of those issues that doesn't really affect the machinery of government.
O_O
*suddenly remembers Raz never would have filed taxes as a married person*
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 01:41:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 10, 2012, 01:40:17 AM
I wonder when gay marriage will stop being a political issue, rehashed during every elections? Will Republicans drop it as a point once it gets passed nationally, or do you think they will make attempts for a while to reverse it?
Reverse it.
Maybe. Speaking from experience (gar marriage as well as adoption are allowed in Belgium) I can say that the issue drops of the radar faster than a rock from a mountain once it's in place. So gays can marriage, who cares. It's amazing how fast the new becomes the normal.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 10, 2012, 02:21:17 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 01:41:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 10, 2012, 01:40:17 AM
I wonder when gay marriage will stop being a political issue, rehashed during every elections? Will Republicans drop it as a point once it gets passed nationally, or do you think they will make attempts for a while to reverse it?
Reverse it.
Maybe. Speaking from experience (gar marriage as well as adoption are allowed in Belgium) I can say that the issue drops of the radar faster than a rock from a mountain once it's in place. So gays can marriage, who cares. It's amazing how fast the new becomes the normal.
You have to remember that Republicans take up issues that would normally be dropped off the radar in 1912.
Quote from: DGuller on May 10, 2012, 05:48:11 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 10, 2012, 02:21:17 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 01:41:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 10, 2012, 01:40:17 AM
I wonder when gay marriage will stop being a political issue, rehashed during every elections? Will Republicans drop it as a point once it gets passed nationally, or do you think they will make attempts for a while to reverse it?
Reverse it.
Maybe. Speaking from experience (gar marriage as well as adoption are allowed in Belgium) I can say that the issue drops of the radar faster than a rock from a mountain once it's in place. So gays can marriage, who cares. It's amazing how fast the new becomes the normal.
You have to remember that Republicans take up issues that would normally be dropped off the radar in 1912.
there's that of course
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 10, 2012, 02:21:17 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 01:41:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 10, 2012, 01:40:17 AM
I wonder when gay marriage will stop being a political issue, rehashed during every elections? Will Republicans drop it as a point once it gets passed nationally, or do you think they will make attempts for a while to reverse it?
Reverse it.
Maybe. Speaking from experience (gar marriage as well as adoption are allowed in Belgium) I can say that the issue drops of the radar faster than a rock from a mountain once it's in place. So gays can marriage, who cares. It's amazing how fast the new becomes the normal.
That's certainly been the case in Canada.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 10, 2012, 02:21:17 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 01:41:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 10, 2012, 01:40:17 AM
I wonder when gay marriage will stop being a political issue, rehashed during every elections? Will Republicans drop it as a point once it gets passed nationally, or do you think they will make attempts for a while to reverse it?
Reverse it.
Maybe. Speaking from experience (gar marriage as well as adoption are allowed in Belgium) I can say that the issue drops of the radar faster than a rock from a mountain once it's in place. So gays can marriage, who cares. It's amazing how fast the new becomes the normal.
Tell that to California.
Quote from: Martinus on May 10, 2012, 01:40:17 AM
I wonder when gay marriage will stop being a political issue, rehashed during every elections? Will Republicans drop it as a point once it gets passed nationally, or do you think they will make attempts for a while to reverse it?
What's going to get passed nationally?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 10, 2012, 02:21:17 AM
Maybe. Speaking from experience (gar marriage as well as adoption are allowed in Belgium) I can say that the issue drops of the radar faster than a rock from a mountain once it's in place.
I can tolerate gar civil unions, but I do not want to see gars marrying any time in my lifetime. Goddamned sturgeon wanna-bes :angry:
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 09:38:56 AM
What's going to get passed nationally?
Federal recognition of gay marriages by States that perform them. That would really be all it would take wouldn't it? Then every gay marriage may or may not require a road trip at some point.
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 09:38:56 AM
What's going to get passed nationally?
Spousal benefits for federal employees.
Ed Anger's Predictortron(tm) sez:
If re-elected, Obama won't do shit for gays.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 10, 2012, 09:50:13 AM
Ed Anger's Predictortron(tm) sez:
If re-elected, Obama won't do shit for gays.
He's already got a hate crimes bill, lets gays serve openly with Siegey, and has the DOJ arguing in court that the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids the federal government from recognizing states' marriages, is unconstitutional.
I'm not sure what else he should do?
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 10, 2012, 09:50:13 AM
Ed Anger's Predictortron(tm) sez:
If re-elected, Obama won't do shit for gays.
Good. It's a state issue.
It's odd while I'm happy Obama's done this I'm also slightly worried that this'll make gay marriage a partisan political issue far more, which would be a shame.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2012, 10:17:04 AM
It's odd while I'm happy Obama's done this I'm also slightly worried that this'll make gay marriage a partisan political issue far more, which would be a shame.
Not necessarily. Obama is in favor of lots of things Republicans also support. They suddenly did not become anti-terrorist suspect killing just because Obama loves his drones of death.
The fact that Democrats favor gay marriage and Republicans oppose it is already well established and one of the reasons it was a good idea for him to do this. It is a wedge issue that can swing independents to the Democratic cause this election. I had resolved to vote third party this election in protest to most of his policies but this has me at least considering otherwise...I mean not that it matters since I live in Texas and therefore my vote does not really count (which turns out to be just fine I do not want to be bombarded like Ed Anger is over in Swing State USA).
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2012, 10:17:04 AM
It's odd while I'm happy Obama's done this I'm also slightly worried that this'll make gay marriage a partisan political issue far more, which would be a shame.
Romney, the moderate candidate, rushed to go on the record affirming he was opposed to civil unions and has already signed a pledge to ban gay marriage. In New York, only four out of the thirty-two republicans in the state senate voted for gay marriage.
So, it's pretty clearly already a partisan issue.
But I'm looking at it from a gay marriage point of view. It could be a useful wedge issue for him, but I actually think one of the successes of gay marriage - such as in NY and, I think, Washington - is that it was terribly political but it wasn't a partisan issue in a national campaign during this hyper-polarised period.
Now, I think, it is. Which I think could be harmful for the movement for gay marriage.
Quote from: Valmy on May 10, 2012, 10:26:25 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2012, 10:17:04 AM
It's odd while I'm happy Obama's done this I'm also slightly worried that this'll make gay marriage a partisan political issue far more, which would be a shame.
Not necessarily. Obama is in favor of lots of things Republicans also support. They suddenly did not become anti-terrorist suspect killing just because Obama loves his drones of death.
The fact that Democrats favor gay marriage and Republicans oppose it is already well established and one of the reasons it was a good idea for him to do this. It is a wedge issue that can swing independents to the Democratic cause this election. I had resolved to vote third party this election in protest to most of his policies but this has me at least considering otherwise...I mean not that it matters since I live in Texas and therefore my vote does not really count (which turns out to be just fine I do not want to be bombarded like Ed Anger is over in Swing State USA).
It can also push independents away. Don't fall into the Languish trap & assume all independent voters are like you. I think this actually hurts Obama in many of the swing/battleground states.
Are there that many moderates who:
a) believe Obama didn't support gay marriage all along;
and:
b) will go out there and change their vote because he says "I think gay marriage is a states' issue, like Cheney, and support it?"
The other point which occurs to me is that even if you don't agree with gay marriage, civil unions aren't a moderate issue. Romney's response was to state that he's opposed to them as well. So if gay marriage will turn away moderates, so will that.
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 10:33:19 AM
It can also push independents away. Don't fall into the Languish trap & assume all independent voters are like you. I think this actually hurts Obama in many of the swing/battleground states.
I assume nothing of the sort. It will of course divide independents but the poll-fu and election calculus suggests it will help him. That is the purpose of wedge issues: to split the electorate in a fashion that will aid you.
And you make it sound like this is some sort of heroic and principalled stand by Obama. Are you telling me I should admire and look up to him as a man of courage?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2012, 10:32:23 AM
But I'm looking at it from a gay marriage point of view. It could be a useful wedge issue for him, but I actually think one of the successes of gay marriage - such as in NY and, I think, Washington - is that it was terribly political but it wasn't a partisan issue in a national campaign during this hyper-polarised period.
My point is your depiction of what happened in NY has little relation to what actually happened. You had some rich NYC republicans throwing money to persuade four republicans to change their votes, along with 28 democrats.
That's... not a bipartisan consensus.
Quote from: Valmy on May 10, 2012, 10:36:52 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 10:33:19 AM
It can also push independents away. Don't fall into the Languish trap & assume all independent voters are like you. I think this actually hurts Obama in many of the swing/battleground states.
I assume nothing of the sort. It will of course divide independents but the poll-fu and election calculus suggests it will help him.
I'm not convinced of that.
QuoteThat is the purpose of wedge issues: to split the electorate in a fashion that will aid you.
And you make it sound like this is some sort of heroic and principalled stand by Obama. Are you telling me I should admire and look up to him as a man of courage?
Not sure how you caught that vibe.
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 10:42:32 AM
Not sure how you caught that vibe.
I just assumed he was doing it for crass political self interest. You are trying to convince me he did it despite political hardship. Politicians generally do not spend political capital unless it is an issue they actually feel is important. Therefore I have a hard time seeing how you are not trying to convince me I should admire his principled stand and perhaps compare it to the moral cowardice of the Republican nominee.
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 10:42:32 AM
Not sure how you caught that vibe.
He's saying, if the stance won't win him votes, the only logical inference is it was made on principle and against self-interest.
Of course, that presumes Obama reasoned correctly ...
Quote from: Malthus on May 10, 2012, 10:46:18 AM
He's saying, if the stance won't win him votes, the only logical inference is it was made on principle and against self-interest.
Of course, that presumes Obama reasoned correctly ...
True but the Democrats have few redeeming qualities or areas of competence beyond mastering polls and blowing with the wind of public opinion. I am sure his political advisors studied this issue to death and obsessed on it for months before he and Biden went in this direction.
Quote from: Valmy on May 10, 2012, 10:45:48 AM
[I just assumed he was doing it for crass political self interest. You are trying to convince me he did it despite political hardship.
I'm not 100% sure why he did it myself. My best guess is that he was backed into a corner & had to, as I mentioned before, shit or get off the pot. It's also possible that it was a miscalculated political move. It's also possible that you're right and that he made a smart political move.
QuotePoliticians generally do not spend political capital unless it is an issue they actually feel is important. Therefore I have a hard time seeing how you are not trying to convince me I should admire his principled stand
I'm not trying to convince you of that, I can assure you.
Quoteand perhaps compare it to the moral cowardice of the Republican nominee.
:huh: Explain plz.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 10, 2012, 10:37:56 AM
My point is your depiction of what happened in NY has little relation to what actually happened. You had some rich NYC republicans throwing money to persuade four republicans to change their votes, along with 28 democrats.
That's... not a bipartisan consensus.
My depiction of what happened in New York was that gay activists and, even wealthy class traitor gays, worked hard to make this very political issue not a massive partisan one - so did Cuomo. The votes at the end of that are irrelevant it was about making gay marriage the issue which Democrats came to and some Republicans did too. The worry I have with this is that gay marriage becomes a 'Democrat issue' like climate change, for example, which I think would be counter-productive.
So it's not a bipartisan consensus - I think consensus is dead. But it's better than this issue becoming a campaign prop for one party.
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 10:51:04 AM
I'm not trying to convince you of that, I can assure you.
Heh just giving you a hard time Spicey.
I have full confidence that this move was done after very carefully coming to the conclusion it would help his chances in November. You may be right and he has miscalculated but I doubt it, the Democrats know pandering.
Quote from: Valmy on May 10, 2012, 11:01:27 AM
have full confidence that this move was done after very carefully coming to the conclusion it would help his chances in November. You may be right and he has miscalculated but I doubt it, the Democrats know pandering.
How's that mandate working out?
Quote from: Valmy on May 10, 2012, 11:01:27 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 10:51:04 AM
I'm not trying to convince you of that, I can assure you.
Heh just giving you a hard time Spicey.
:hug:
QuoteI have full confidence that this move was done after very carefully coming to the conclusion it would help his chances in November. You may be right and he has miscalculated but I doubt it, the Democrats know pandering.
The whole thing might have been orchestrated, but I doubt it. I think Obama's hand was forced and he made his evolutionary conclusion known before he had intended to do so.
Quote from: Martinus on May 10, 2012, 01:40:17 AM
I wonder when gay marriage will stop being a political issue, rehashed during every elections? Will Republicans drop it as a point once it gets passed nationally, or do you think they will make attempts for a while to reverse it?
Considering how hard they've been fighting to get
Roe v. Wade overturned, I think it's safe to say we're in for a long, drawn-out fight, even long after it gets passed nationally.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 10, 2012, 11:32:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 10, 2012, 01:40:17 AM
I wonder when gay marriage will stop being a political issue, rehashed during every elections? Will Republicans drop it as a point once it gets passed nationally, or do you think they will make attempts for a while to reverse it?
Considering how hard they've been fighting to get Roe v. Wade overturned, I think it's safe to say we're in for a long, drawn-out fight, even long after it gets passed nationally.
I don't think these are comparable. Abortion is a completely different issue, morally, to gay marriage - the latter being more comparable to stuff like segregation. I can see abortion being a moral issue in 20 or 50 years - on the other hand, if gay marriage is passed today, in 10 years from now people will just shrug and wonder why it has ever been an issue.
Plus there is the whole constitutional nightmare of reversing gay marriage when people actually will get married and acquire existing rights and obligations.
While Obama works to be on teh right side of history, the Washington Post has an in depth look at the boarding school days of Romney which apparently included some rather severe bullying of a gay student:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html
Obama ate a dog.
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 12:32:30 PM
Obama ate a dog.
After years of systematic torture, Mitt's dog wished he was.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 10, 2012, 12:39:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 12:32:30 PM
Obama ate a dog.
After years of systematic torture, Mitt's dog wished he was.
I wonder if Mitt cut his dog's hair against its will.
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 12:44:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 10, 2012, 12:39:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 12:32:30 PM
Obama ate a dog.
After years of systematic torture, Mitt's dog wished he was.
I wonder if Mitt cut his dog's hair against its will.
Hosed him down like
Shawshank.
Quote from: Martinus on May 10, 2012, 11:35:57 AM
I don't think these are comparable. Abortion is a completely different issue, morally, to gay marriage - the latter being more comparable to stuff like segregation. I can see abortion being a moral issue in 20 or 50 years - on the other hand, if gay marriage is passed today, in 10 years from now people will just shrug and wonder why it has ever been an issue.
Plus there is the whole constitutional nightmare of reversing gay marriage when people actually will get married and acquire existing rights and obligations.
I think this is right. It won't matter in a decade or so.
I do wonder about those people who did get married and then it was re-outlawed. In California, I know the marriages are still valid. One of my employees in SF is legally still married under these terms.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2012, 10:57:38 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 10, 2012, 10:37:56 AM
My point is your depiction of what happened in NY has little relation to what actually happened. You had some rich NYC republicans throwing money to persuade four republicans to change their votes, along with 28 democrats.
That's... not a bipartisan consensus.
My depiction of what happened in New York was that gay activists and, even wealthy class traitor gays, worked hard to make this very political issue not a massive partisan one - so did Cuomo. The votes at the end of that are irrelevant it was about making gay marriage the issue which Democrats came to and some Republicans did too. The worry I have with this is that gay marriage becomes a 'Democrat issue' like climate change, for example, which I think would be counter-productive.
So it's not a bipartisan consensus - I think consensus is dead. But it's better than this issue becoming a campaign prop for one party.
It has long been a Dem vs. Repub issue. To suggest otherwise is to feign ignorance. Only change I see is that whereas in the last 20 years Repubs whipped up a frenzy over the issue and Dems were lukewarm, now Dens support and Repubs often dodge the issue.
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2012, 01:24:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2012, 10:57:38 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 10, 2012, 10:37:56 AM
My point is your depiction of what happened in NY has little relation to what actually happened. You had some rich NYC republicans throwing money to persuade four republicans to change their votes, along with 28 democrats.
That's... not a bipartisan consensus.
My depiction of what happened in New York was that gay activists and, even wealthy class traitor gays, worked hard to make this very political issue not a massive partisan one - so did Cuomo. The votes at the end of that are irrelevant it was about making gay marriage the issue which Democrats came to and some Republicans did too. The worry I have with this is that gay marriage becomes a 'Democrat issue' like climate change, for example, which I think would be counter-productive.
So it's not a bipartisan consensus - I think consensus is dead. But it's better than this issue becoming a campaign prop for one party.
It has long been a Dem vs. Repub issue. To suggest otherwise is to feign ignorance. Only change I see is that whereas in the last 20 years Repubs whipped up a frenzy over the issue and Dems were lukewarm, now Dens support and Repubs often dodge the issue.
:yes: I really don't know what Sheilbh is talking about.
I'm glad kindle changed Dems to Dens.
A bit early to fully assess the impact to the election, but here's a Politico article with some initial thoughts on 7 battleground states:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76143.html
Quote
Obama's seven states of gay marriage grief
By: Charles Mahtesian
May 10, 2012 04:45 AM EDT
If there's been one constant over the course of President Barack Obama's evolution on gay marriage, it's this: The White House's keen awareness of the radioactive politics of the issue.
Obama aides fretted that delay would dent his new-breed brand, and likewise that plunging in could weigh him down in battleground states. They even hatched a plan to announce his support just prior to the Democratic National Convention — a characteristically all-in-good-time solution that acknowledged the minefield he was walking through.
And the White House is right to be concerned.
No doubt, Obama gets some political pluses out of supporting same-sex marriage Wednesday — energizing LGBT voters and donors, adding a new line to his Mitt Romney's-a-throwback brief, kick-starting college turnout or in simply reminding people that yes, he came to Washington to do big things.
But for all the polls showing movement toward greater public acceptance of gay marriage, for all the signs of increased tolerance and changing mores, there's one undeniable fact: A full embrace of gay rights has never been a winner in the political arena.
(See also: 20 gay rights milestones)
Fifteen years of ballot measures in more than 30 states from coast-to-coast show an issue that has been rejected nearly every time it's gone before the voters — often by large margins.
Here are seven states where Obama just bought himself headaches with his historic decision to back gay marriage:
North Carolina
A political rule of thumb: You don't want to be on the wrong side of an issue supported by 6-in-10 voters. But that's where the president is in North Carolina, where a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage passed Tuesday by 61 percent to 39 percent. Just seven of the state's 100 counties opposed the ballot measure.
North Carolina is no ordinary state. In 2012, it occupies a central location in the political universe — it's not only a key swing state, it's the place that will host the Democratic National Convention this summer. Obama won it in 2008, arguably his biggest reach on Election Night, and hoped accepting his re-nomination there would keep it in his column.
But the state was a pretty shaky proposition for Obama this year already, and it just got shakier. After the constitutional amendment — and the backlash against it from gay rights activists — the Democratic National Convention Committee was forced Wednesday to confirm that the convention would remain in Charlotte. That's not the convention messaging that Democrats are looking for this year.
Florida
One day, gay marriage might be enshrined in law across the map. But it won't be until after the current generation of senior citizens passes away. Not only do they oppose it by lopsided margins, they also vote in disproportionately high percentages.
Consider this fact about Florida, a state with an unusually large population of seniors. Four years ago, Obama and an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment shared the Florida ballot. Obama won the state narrowly, the amendment won by a landslide.
And the amendment won 600,000 more votes than Obama.
The president can still win reelection without Florida's treasure trove of electoral votes. But he'd prefer not to risk it, which could be the side effect of a public affirmation of support for gay marriage in a state as competitive as Florida.
Colorado
The new capital of evangelicalism? No, it's not in the South. It's Colorado Springs, according to Christianity Today magazine, which once described the city as having "more megachurches, megaseminaries, and mega-Christian activity than any other American city."
After Denver, Colorado Springs is the largest city in the most important state in the Mountain West — the city is bigger than Cleveland or Pittsburgh. Gay marriage is an issue that resonates there among Christian conservatives and it's the kind of issue that can get evangelical voters very enthusiastic about the prospect of voting for Romney.
The evidence of that came in 2006, when Colorado voters passed an amendment to outlaw gay marriage — a measure strongly supported by the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family. While the state voted in favor of the constitutional amendment, 55 percent to 45 percent, in Colorado Springs' El Paso County the numbers were far greater — 66 percent voted for the measure. More pro-amendment votes were cast there than in any other county in the state.
Colorado is the kind of place that helps Team Obama sleep a little more soundly at night because it's a hedge in case Florida flips back Republican, or Ohio or Virginia drifts back to red. Any leg up for Romney there would be bad news back in Chicago.
Nevada
Utah may be the LDS heartland but Nevada ranks among the top five states in terms of percentage of Mormon population. And the LDS church opposes gay marriage.
While Mormons aren't a significant Democratic constituency — and especially not with Romney in the race — it's best not to antagonize any constituency in a swing state like Nevada, where the presidential outcome in 2000 and 2004 was decided by less than 25,000 votes.
"Overall in Nevada, it hurts. To what degree is hard to determine," said Pete Ernaut, a former GOP state legislator and a confidant of Gov. Brian Sandoval. "The issue here is about a tossup, with voters about evenly split. But that said, there are key constituencies affected by this, most notably Mormon voters — and specifically Democratic Mormon voters — and that is going to be a difficult issue for the president."
Iowa
In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court made history with its unanimous decision to allow same-sex marriage.
One year later, Iowa voters made history again by ousting three of the justices who handed down that ruling.
The backlash was as extreme as it sounds: their removal from the high court was the first time an Iowa Supreme Court justice wasn't retained in nearly a half-century.
And the issue echoed through the 2010 governor's race as well. Republican Terry Branstad argued that the court was wrong to strike down the state law banning same-sex marriage and advocated a constitutional amendment to re-institute the ban. His Democratic opponent, Gov. Chet Culver, disagreed on the idea of putting the court decision to a vote.
Culver lost his reelection bid, though not solely because of his position on same-sex marriage. Still, it didn't help him, and that's the risk Obama takes there. Obama and Iowa go way back — he's president today because he dealt Hillary Clinton a third-place finish there in the 2008 caucuses — but it's a state where just 1 percentage point divided the presidential nominees in 2000 and 2004.
Missouri
There are many Democrats who already concede Missouri is a lost cause for Obama in 2012, even though he only lost to John McCain there by a razor-close margin in 2008.
Wednesday's announcement only makes the situation worse. In a state where there's no room for error, the president has taken a position that places him at odds with 71 percent of the state — at least that's the percentage that voted to ban gay marriage when it was on the ballot in 2004.
There's a very good chance that number has eroded since then. But not enough for it to be an asset, in a state where Obama's strength in St. Louis, Kansas City and some surrounding suburbs is counterbalanced by the parts of the state that sit squarely in the Bible Belt.
Ohio
It's often said that the 2004 gay marriage initiative that passed in Ohio played a key role in lifting George W. Bush to victory over John Kerry. Whether that's true or not — Bush strategist Matthew Dowd argued Wednesday that it's not — it's an issue that resonates outside of Democratic vote centers like Columbus and Cleveland.
In 2004, here's how state GOP Chairman Robert Bennett framed it to The New York Times. "I'd be naive if I didn't say it helped," he said. "And it helped most in what we refer to as the Bible Belt area of southeastern and southwestern Ohio, where we had the largest percentage increase in support for the president."
Recent polls continue to show that a majority in Ohio oppose gay marriage, compared with only about one-third of voters who support it. And, as POLITICO reported Wednesday, when Vice President Joe Biden privately argued for the president to refrain from expressing his support, he flagged two states where there could be a backlash — his native Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Interesting. I thought perhaps this was a sign some sort of tipping point had been reached.
Still that article assumes, in many cases, that opinions on gay marriage are exactly where they were a few years ago.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 10, 2012, 12:52:39 PM
I think this is right. It won't matter in a decade or so.
I do wonder about those people who did get married and then it was re-outlawed. In California, I know the marriages are still valid. One of my employees in SF is legally still married under these terms.
It's based on whether the marriage was valid at the time of issue. Part of "no ex post facto-" the example my class and I were given was that the 19-year-old whose arrest prompted the introduction of "doctor laws" (no statutory rape within a given age gap) still had to serve his prison term for a law that had been changed, because sex with a 17-year-old was illegal when he was convicted.
Quote from: Valmy on May 10, 2012, 04:10:54 PM
Interesting. I thought perhaps this was a sign some sort of tipping point had been reached.
Still that article assumes, in many cases, that opinions on gay marriage are exactly where they were a few years ago.
I don't think it assumes that-- I think it states 2004 or whatever as a reference point, and gives more current polling figures where available. In the case of Missouri, it speculates that the 71% figure has likely eroded somewhat.
Frankly, I'm glad he took a stand. It's a civil rights issue- it might not be quite the stark contrast between first- and second-class citizens that existed prior to the '60s, but we're living in a time when every penny counts, and homosexual households can't save their money the way a heterosexual household can; being able to claim that one extra deduction might mean the difference between scraping by on the mortgage and facing foreclosure. While some insurers independently equivocate hetero- and homosexual couples for benefits, there are many more that won't, and HIPAA's not on the side of these couples, either.
Unfortunately, this is exactly why nobody wants to recognize it as a civil rights issue- it was easier to force the issue with blacks because they were being actively victimized, but most of those sitting against gay couples recognized by law successfully hide behind a "justification" that they just don't want homosexuals siphoning even more money that should be theirs.
Quoteesident Obama appears to have gone against the safest read of polling data on gay marriage, with support for legalization underwater in a handful of swing states and among key Obama constituencies like Hispanics and black voters.
—In Ohio, a forthcoming PPP survey exclusively shared with POLITICO, shows 35 percent of voters support same sex marriage according, with 52 percent opposed. Those numbers are similar to an October 2011 poll from the same firm showing 32 percent support, 55 percent opposed.
—In Pennsylvania, a March PPP poll put opposition to gay marriage at 50 percent, with only 38 percent approval. But a 2011 Franklin and Marshall poll showed that 50 percent of voters supported a constitutional amendment allowing gays to get marriage.
—Same-sex marriage is also opposed by a plurality of voters in Iowa and Virginia in PPP polls — both battleground states. In Iowa, however, a 2012 Des Moines Register poll showed that 56 percent of voters opposed overturning gay marriage in the state via a constitutional amendment. Same-sex marriage polls above water in New Hampshire and Colorado, according to both PPP and a 2012 WMUR poll.
—And in Florida, a fall survey shows gay marriage support at 38 percent approval, 48 percent disapproval. That's in line with a number of other polls of the Sunshine state.
—Among African-Americans, 55 percent remained opposed to gay marriage in a yearlong composite of ABC/Washington Post polling data. That's down significantly from earlier in the decade, where two-in-three black voters opposed gay marriage — but still a large chunck of the president's most enthusiastic supporters.
—A fall poll put Hispanic Catholic support of same-sex marriage at 42 approve, 42 disapprove. Hispanics as a whole haven't been polled on the question recently, but a 2009 Pew poll had the Latino community fairly evenly divided on the question of same-sex marriage, with 45 percent in favor and 49 percent opposed. And an April survey showed that 59 percent of Latinos said homosexuality should be accepted by society, but it did not ask about gay marriage specifically.
—In the opening months of Obama's presidency, only 40 percent of Americans backed gay marriage, Gallup reported in May, 2009. A majority of independents opposed gay marriage - only 45 percent supported it — and the concept won backing from only a narrow majority of Democrats. Half of all Americans backed gay marriage in the 2012 Gallup's 2012 gay marriage poll, released Tuesday. Democrats and independents drove the increase, with 65 percent of Democrats backing the practice and 57 percent of independents throwing their support behind it.
Ultimately, the question is will Obama's stand hurt him — or could it even help him? Polls show young voters voters are among the most enthusiastic about legalized same-sex marriage — and their enthusiasm for Obama has waned slightly from 2008.
"I don't think Obama's running much of a risk because most voters who are really anti-gay already think Obama supports gay marriage. I'm sure it will cost him a few votes but it could also reinvigorate young people who might not be as enthusiastic as they were in 2008," said Tom Jensen, polling director for PPP.
Still, social conservatives remain convinced that black voters and Hispanic voters will be demoralized by Obama's flop.
"There's a heck of a lot of socially conservative minorities that are part of the Democratic coalition — his coalition — that will jump ship," said Thomas Peters, the cultural director for the National Organization for Marriage.
"It seems that in my experience that marriage is absolutely an issue" for the black and Latino communities, Peters said.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/polls-show-a-mixed-picture-for-legalizing-gay-marriage-122984.html
I gotta say, I find it hard to imagine the black community ditching Obama over this. He's still got astonishing support despite doing nothing for them in a recession that's hit them far worse than whites...
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2012, 01:24:59 PM
It has long been a Dem vs. Repub issue. To suggest otherwise is to feign ignorance. Only change I see is that whereas in the last 20 years Repubs whipped up a frenzy over the issue and Dems were lukewarm, now Dens support and Repubs often dodge the issue.
There's a difference between it being an issue that Democrats support and Republicans generally oppose and being a policy identified with one party. Right now I think there's a gay marriage campaign at local and state level which Democrats are more likely to support, but that some libertarian-ish Republicans and many independents are likely to back. That's better than the Democrats campaigning for gay marriage because it'll turn off those Republicans - though Faelin does those 4 votes down, they were essential - and independents because it becomes just another partisan issue, rather than an issue with some partisan overlay.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 10, 2012, 04:34:00 PM
Frankly, I'm glad he took a stand.
Yes, it's all very nice. Matthew 16:26, and all that.
Enjoy Thurston Romney the 3rd's presidency.
Intrade plunges:
(https://data.intrade.com/graphing/temp/chart133640679202620844.png)
Quote from: Faeelin on May 10, 2012, 05:29:42 PM
Intrade plunges:
(https://data.intrade.com/graphing/temp/chart133640679202620844.png)
:huh: Obama is down two cents today.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 10, 2012, 05:27:35 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 10, 2012, 04:34:00 PM
Frankly, I'm glad he took a stand.
Yes, it's all very nice. Matthew 16:26, and all that.
Enjoy Thurston Romney the 3rd's presidency.
You will address him as Willard, and you'll like it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 10, 2012, 05:08:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2012, 01:24:59 PM
It has long been a Dem vs. Repub issue. To suggest otherwise is to feign ignorance. Only change I see is that whereas in the last 20 years Repubs whipped up a frenzy over the issue and Dems were lukewarm, now Dens support and Repubs often dodge the issue.
There's a difference between it being an issue that Democrats support and Republicans generally oppose and being a policy identified with one party. Right now I think there's a gay marriage campaign at local and state level which Democrats are more likely to support, but that some libertarian-ish Republicans and many independents are likely to back. That's better than the Democrats campaigning for gay marriage because it'll turn off those Republicans - though Faelin does those 4 votes down, they were essential - and independents because it becomes just another partisan issue, rather than an issue with some partisan overlay.
Except that there was/has only been a very brief time in between when it was a rally cry for Republicans and now an increasingly rally cry for Democrats. Given the history, I'm not really sure it is an issue that can stay partisan-neutral until it gets resolved.
Again there's a difference between partisan taking a position on or using gay marriage and it becoming a partisan issue. Ross Douthat explains what I think made the movement for gay marriage successful:
QuoteThe Success of the Gay Marriage Movement
In my Campaign Stops column this week, which came out just before President Obama's official reversal on gay marriage, I made the following point about why his position was becoming so untenable:
Quote
Supporters of same-sex marriage have worked very hard to frame their issue, not as an ordinary political conflict, but as an all-or-nothing question that pits enlightenment and progress against reaction, bigotry and hate. I don't accept that framing, but I accept that its architects genuinely believe in it, and see the conflict over same-sex unions as a clear-cut struggle between good and evil, with no possibility of middle ground.
If same-sex marriage isn't an issue where people can disagree in good faith, though, then the president's evasions and obfuscations can't be treated as ordinary political maneuverings, and excused as just so much politics-as-usual. If the debate is as black and white as many supporters of same-sex marriage argue, then they should be much harder on political leaders who pretend that it's a gray area.
Indeed, if you accept the framing of the debate that many liberals (and many journalists) embrace, then you have to acknowledge that President Obama has spent the last four years lying to the American people about his convictions on one of the defining civil rights issues of our time, and giving aid and comfort to pure bigotry in the service of his other political priorities.
As it turned out, that framing and its implications were powerful enough (and potentially damaging enough, especially within circles that matter a great deal to him) to force the president's hand on the issue. And that forcing of his hand is a testament, I think, to the power of moral absolutism in politics. This power isn't always visible in the day-to-day: Our constitutional system requires compromise to grease the wheels of policymaking, unbending politicians are usually unsuccessful ones, and gridlock rules when lawmakers can't muddle their principles a little. But over a longer time horizon, the most enduring victories are often won by movements and factions that succeed in branding opposing views as not only mistaken but unthinkable, not only foolish but immoral, and that use stigma as well as suasion to cement the gains that they've achieved. This is what's been happening in the gay marriage debate these last 10 years and more: At the popular level, the country is still divided (and perhaps more divided than polling suggests), but at the elite level and within the Democratic Party's upper reaches, especially, what was a consensus understanding of marriage just two decades ago has become so associated with bigotry and reaction that a sitting president facing a difficult re-election campaign has been forced to abandon the politically-safer "civil unions yes, but marriage not just yet" position for the uncertain consequences of being for marriage, period. Given the landscape of the 2012 election (and the results yesterday in North Carolina), Obama's prior attempts to finesse the issue made a lot of sense. But the moral ground had shifted underneath him — to the point where even his own cabinet wouldn't risk the taint of bigotry in order to give him cover on the issue — and such finesse was no longer an acceptable option.
As a gay marriage skeptic, I'm obviously on what's likely to be the losing end of this shift. But as an observer of politics and culture —and someone who thinks that moral absolutisms have an important place in both — I can't help but be impressed by the gay marriage movement's ability to transform the terms of the marriage debate so completely and comprehensively. Politics is mostly the art of fighting over a muddled middle ground, but this is the way the world gets well and truly changed: Not through conciliation, but through conquest.
As I say my worry is that it ceases to be that sort of moral fight that can win over some Republicans, independents and Democrats because it's right and becomes a part of Democrat orthodoxy with all the negatives that come with that - such as climate change, or, I think, some issues that are generally supported by African Americans. Now it's associated with Obama I think it's more likely that those libertarian Republicans or ambivalent independents will change their view on whether they want to give the Democrats a win or not.
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 05:55:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 10, 2012, 05:27:35 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 10, 2012, 04:34:00 PM
Frankly, I'm glad he took a stand.
Yes, it's all very nice. Matthew 16:26, and all that.
Enjoy Thurston Romney the 3rd's presidency.
You will address him as Willard, and you'll like it.
:lol: I do so adore The Good Reverend.
I think in the end this move will prove brilliant by Obama.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 10:36:32 PM
I think in the end this move will prove brilliant by Obama.
I agree. One of the tweets CNN played this morning stated (she was unhappy) "this makes us the laughing stock of the World." Get the message out and she would see the Western world is snickering at us because they have done something with the issue. This is an issue where a lot of people in the US are not educated.
Wait 'till the Obama team starts with the Bain Capital stuff.
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2012, 03:41:55 PM
Are no-sex marriages legal in America?
Not only are they legal, before 1968 they were mandatory.
Quote from: Habsburg on May 11, 2012, 12:45:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 10:36:32 PM
I think in the end this move will prove brilliant by Obama.
I agree. One of the tweets CNN played this morning stated (she was unhappy) "this makes us the laughing stock of the World." Get the message out and she would see the Western world is snickering at us because they have done something with the issue. This is an issue where a lot of people in the US are not educated.
Wait 'till the Obama team starts with the Bain Capital stuff.
Does the West constitute "the World"? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2012, 08:02:40 AM
Does the West constitute "the World"? :unsure:
I think we could live with being the "laughingstock" of, say, Jacob Zuma or Vladimir Putin.
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2012, 08:02:40 AM
Does the West constitute "the World"? :unsure:
Meh the Japanese marry video game characters they have no room to chuckle.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2012, 08:24:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2012, 08:02:40 AM
Does the West constitute "the World"? :unsure:
I think we could live with being the "laughingstock" of, say, Jacob Zuma or Vladimir Putin.
South Africa has gay marriage and their constitution enshrines gay equal rights. It's not culturally popular or really tolerated, but still.
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2012, 08:02:40 AM
Does the West constitute "the World"? :unsure:
Pretty much. Though I paint the "West" in broad strokes: All the Americas (x Ven/Cuba) all Europe, Turkey, Israel, South Africa, India, Singapore, Anzac, S Korea and Japan. When I'm feeling super nice the rest of E/SE Asia, UAE and Qatar.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 11, 2012, 12:53:46 PM
South Africa has gay marriage and their constitution enshrines gay equal rights. It's not culturally popular or really tolerated, but still.
I don't think most yanks know this factoid. :)
Quote from: Habsburg on May 11, 2012, 10:10:00 PM
I don't think most yanks know this factoid. :)
:yes: Mostly because it's irrelevant. Most yanks also don't know about many of the unenforced stupid laws that are still "on the books" in our own country, like it being illegal to roller-skate in a public restroom in Portland, OR.
I generally consider SA's homosexual protections a thrown bone and, for all intents and purposes, not actually existent.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2012, 10:55:46 PM
:yes: Mostly because it's irrelevant. Most yanks also don't know about many of the unenforced stupid laws that are still "on the books" in our own country, like it being illegal to roller-skate in a public restroom in Portland, OR.
How is it irrelevant?
South Africa's got gay marriage, constitutionally prohibited discrimination - so gays are allowed to adopt, to serve in the military and so on. Plus, like Argentina, transsexuals are allowed to change their gender in the population register.
South Africa may not be culturally tolerant but legally it is very liberal and those laws do matter and are enforced. But even culturally it's getting better, in part because the law's led the way. The constitution's respected because of its place post-apartheid and a number of leaders from the anti-apartheid leader, especially, Desmond Tutu are loud voices for equality.
QuoteI generally consider SA's homosexual protections a thrown bone and, for all intents and purposes, not actually existent.
Gay can marry, serve in the military, donate blood and adopt.
Of course they can. In South Africa HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
Quote from: The Brain on May 12, 2012, 08:34:06 AM
Of course they can. In South Africa HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
And banging 11 year old virgins cures it.