Obama Endorses Gay Marriage. Rest of World to Follow?

I still disagree with Obama's newest stance on this issue. I don't agree with letting the states being free to discriminate like that. Where equality is concerned, it should be universal across the country.

It's quite obviously a political ploy to capitalize on the North Carolina outcry.

The one good, nay, great thing that comes out of it though is a much needed nation-wide dialog on this issue is ensuing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. I'm sure if President Obama were to "decisively lead" on this issue that the GOP would follow!

Their track record certainly lends credence to that argument.

Kudos to the president.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice to see him take a real stance. Heres to the day when supporting equality isn't newsworthy anymore. Eh, who am I kidding.

 
Even if it means a move towards equality, folks are extremely naive to think it was nothing, but politically motivated. He solidifies his base, gets the big money donors to come out with George Clooney the very next night to give big $, does it the day after NC votes to make a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as that between a man and a woman, does it in May, 6 months before the election so even "offended supporters" will forget, takes the focus off of his failed economic policies, does not really hurt his chances with African American voters as recent polls show he still has a 90% approval rating etc......

He is a genius in manipulating the press and the people. Nothing he does is impromptu or without careful and calculated decision making. It is the epitome of "What's in it for me".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whether he actually endorses it or not, it took balls to say that. Now, whether it gets him more votes, or bites him in the a$$, remains to be seen.

 
lo country said:
Even if it means a move towards equality, folks are extremely naive to think it was nothing, but politically motivated.

He is a genius in manipulating the press and the people. Nothing he does is impromptu or without careful and calculated decision making. It is the epitome of "What's in it for me".
Click to expand...
Even if you are correct I'll take politically motivated equality over inequality for whatever reason.

 
carlfense said:
lo country said:
Even if it means a move towards equality, folks are extremely naive to think it was nothing, but politically motivated.

He is a genius in manipulating the press and the people. Nothing he does is impromptu or without careful and calculated decision making. It is the epitome of "What's in it for me".
Click to expand...
Even if you are correct I'll take politically motivated equality over inequality for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
The problem is Obama's stance is not one of equality. States shouldn't have the right to discriminate against people, like Obama is advocating. The point of the constitution is to protect people from tyranny.

 
The Dude said:
carlfense said:
lo country said:
Even if it means a move towards equality, folks are extremely naive to think it was nothing, but politically motivated.

He is a genius in manipulating the press and the people. Nothing he does is impromptu or without careful and calculated decision making. It is the epitome of "What's in it for me".
Click to expand...
Even if you are correct I'll take politically motivated equality over inequality for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
The problem is Obama's stance is not one of equality. States shouldn't have the right to discriminate against people, like Obama is advocating. The point of the constitution is to protect people from tyranny.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Perhaps I should have phrased it as a move towards equality. Supporting/endorsing it is the first step.

What did MLK say? Something like "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." I probably butchered that.

 
I find it interesting thinking back to 2004 and how much of a wedge issue this was with Bush's reelection campaign, and now Romney is flailing like an idiot trying to find a position that is firm enough for this point in time, but not too firm to ease down from at a later date. This issue is incredibly lopsided with young people and not likely to be an opinion that will change from for to against with age.

 
I think the only "out" for the Republican Party is a position I hold. The government should not be in the marriage business. Let the local courthouse issue only civil union licenses. It would allow the married couple the legal rights to transfer property and allow for the care of children. Churches can do the marriage ceremony and can marry any two people that their religion allows. We have more important issues in this country to decide and the energy that "gay marriage" saps from public discourse just allows the politicians to divert our attention from what really needs to get solved.

 
This was the right thing to do. I applaud Obama for taking a stance. Every other president has ignored this issue. Or taken a non-stance stance, like "don't ask, don't tell."

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top