The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Elections

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-09-2012, 06:47 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is online now
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 76,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC View Post
The people who are against gay marriage are still a lot more against it than the people who are for it. It doesn't matter if it polls favorably, as long as the people against it are rabidly against it and the people who are for it are only mildly enthusiastic it is an overall loss of votes.
You seem to have mixed up numbers and enthusiasm at the end of the post, but regardless, I think your premise is false. If people are only mildly supportive of gay marriage, who is rallying in support of it and why is it becoming legal in more states? Who got politicians to support it in New York and Maryland and who is challenging Prop 8 in California?
Advertisements  
  #52  
Old 05-09-2012, 07:17 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 23,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
You seem to have mixed up numbers and enthusiasm at the end of the post, but regardless, I think your premise is false. If people are only mildly supportive of gay marriage, who is rallying in support of it and why is it becoming legal in more states? Who got politicians to support it in New York and Maryland and who is challenging Prop 8 in California?
As stated on tonight's news, every state that is expected to be a swing state in November has made SSM illegal. So it doesn't matter in the slightest if solid Blue states support it. The only thing that counts in the election are swing voters in swing states.
  #53  
Old 05-09-2012, 07:52 PM
furt furt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky View Post
I came to believe same sex marriage should be legal before the president, but it took me longer to arrive at it.
So, it took him a lot longer than it took you to even start thinking about it, and he should get extra credit for that? Really?


I swear, these efforts to lionize the guy make him look so much worse.

Last edited by furt; 05-09-2012 at 07:53 PM..
  #54  
Old 05-09-2012, 08:10 PM
Gagundathar Gagundathar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Regardless of how long it took him to decide to go public with what I think was a privately held position, the fact remains that Mr. Obama took a courageous position by merely declaring that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. The political fallout from the right could be considerable, but in the long run, this could prove to be a real rallying point for the progressives who have felt somewhat abandoned by their chosen leader.

Personally, the entire argument seems ludicrous to me. How in the world would anyone challenge the right for two adults to express their love for one another publicly by declaring that they are jointly responsible for their lives together? How can love be limited by gender preference? For years, the religious right has denigrated same-sex relations as immoral in much the same way as premarital sex was considered immoral. And yet when these couples choose to bond one to another in a heartfelt ceremony of love and fidelity, the right declares that this, too, is immoral. Marriage isn't about sex, y'all. It is about commitment and love and honesty and fidelity and all of those other virtues that the right so dearly holds sacred.

It makes me sad that we, the citizens of the 21st century, are even having this debate.
  #55  
Old 05-09-2012, 08:54 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is online now
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 76,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
So it doesn't matter in the slightest if solid Blue states support it. The only thing that counts in the election are swing voters in swing states.
It matters if the money from the solid blue states helps the campaign get more pro-Obama swing voters to the polls in the swing states.
  #56  
Old 05-09-2012, 09:18 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 23,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
It matters if the money from the solid blue states helps the campaign get more pro-Obama swing voters to the polls in the swing states.
That's a point, and it doesn't appear to be coincidence that the announcement was made just before a Hollywood fund-raiser.

But as an effect, the additional increment that will come from this stance is probably too small to be noticed. People have been estimating that the campaign will need a billion dollars. Is there really a possibility that any increase will be larger than rounding error?
  #57  
Old 05-09-2012, 09:32 PM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 14,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagundathar View Post
Marriage isn't about sex, y'all.
Just ask anyone who is married.
  #58  
Old 05-09-2012, 09:57 PM
Least Original User Name Ever Least Original User Name Ever is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
It matters if the money from the solid blue states helps the campaign get more pro-Obama swing voters to the polls in the swing states.
Will it be that much more, though? That's the many, many, many dollar question.
  #59  
Old 05-09-2012, 09:58 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 20,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
So, it took him a lot longer than it took you to even start thinking about it, and he should get extra credit for that?


I swear, these efforts to lionize the guy make him look so much worse.
And efforts to make his admirable decision look expedient make Romney (and President Obama's detractors) look better?

Really?
  #60  
Old 05-09-2012, 10:12 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 20,591
Allow me to rephrase:

And efforts to make an admirable decision look merely politically expedient (and therefore somehow tawdry) make Romney (and President Obama's detractors) look better?

Really?
  #61  
Old 05-09-2012, 11:40 PM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,376
From a purely political perspective, the evolution occurred four years too early. Obama is getting out a little ahead of history, which Presidents usually prefer to do as little as possible. It was a gutsy move. I extend my congratulations. As to whether he should have done this years ago... politics is the art of the possible. Slow, steady, no-drama Obama provides lasting change. Whatever happens with gay marriage, nobody will be able to put Don't Ask Don't Tell back into the military.

Yes, this could cost him the election. No, the election is not a sure thing, though I think intrade underestimates Obama's strength when they give him 60% odds.

For the moment, Romney gets irritated when reporters ask him about gay marriage, medical marijuana or in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants: "Arenít there issues of significance youíd like to talk about?" But I suspect that Rove's Super Pac will have a more politically adept take on the issue.
  #62  
Old 05-09-2012, 11:45 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 68,832
It just now occurred to me, Biden's statement last week was not a gaffe, it was a trial balloon!
  #63  
Old 05-10-2012, 01:31 AM
appleciders appleciders is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
From a purely political perspective, the evolution occurred four years too early. Obama is getting out a little ahead of history, which Presidents usually prefer to do as little as possible. It was a gutsy move. I extend my congratulations. As to whether he should have done this years ago... politics is the art of the possible. Slow, steady, no-drama Obama provides lasting change. Whatever happens with gay marriage, nobody will be able to put Don't Ask Don't Tell back into the military.
Maybe. But sometimes when Presidents get out ahead of history, it becomes a lasting and defining moment of their careers. LBJ would be remembered very negatively for getting us into Vietnam, but he rightly gets a lot of credit for pushing through Civil Rights legislation, to the point where he's frequently remembered positively. This issue may not be quite as big as the Civil Rights movement in the '60s (or it may; we're probably too close to judge it accurately) but Obama would do well to be on the right side of it if he's got his eyes on the history books.
  #64  
Old 05-10-2012, 05:58 AM
furt furt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Allow me to rephrase:

And efforts to make an admirable decision look merely politically expedient (and therefore somehow tawdry) make Romney (and President Obama's detractors) look better?
I got no skin in Romney's game, either, dude. But the guy I will be voting for ... well, he engages in the occasional BS, too. It's all in the game, every grown-up realizes it, and plenty of very good policy decisions have come from politicians doing what was politically expedient. Hell, Clinton didn't have a sincere bone in his body and he did a pretty good job.


But if it gets you all inspired to see a guy respond to years of political pressure by, in 2012, bravely, admirably, nay heroically adopting the same position Dick Cheney held in 1999, feel free. Just ignore those of us laughing at you.

Last edited by furt; 05-10-2012 at 06:03 AM..
  #65  
Old 05-10-2012, 06:02 AM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleciders
LBJ would be remembered very negatively for getting us into Vietnam
Which history books?
  #66  
Old 05-10-2012, 06:25 AM
Steve MB Steve MB is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 9,110
Romney's ringing affirmation of the opposite stance: "I have the same views Iíve had since running for office". (emphasis added)
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #67  
Old 05-10-2012, 06:30 AM
MsWhatsit MsWhatsit is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post

But if it gets you all inspired to see a guy respond to years of political pressure by, in 2012, bravely, admirably, nay heroically adopting the same position Dick Cheney held in 1999, feel free. Just ignore those of us laughing at you.
OK. Sounds like a fair deal to me.
  #68  
Old 05-10-2012, 06:43 AM
Maastricht Maastricht is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Dutch in the Netherlands
Posts: 7,999
This Dutch woman says kudos' to Obama.

I would have thougth you guys in the US would have gone the same route we did in the Netherlands, in 2001, as the first country in the world. . First same-sex civil unions, "registered partnerships" were allowed; when that went okay, marriage followed about five years later. But apparently, Obama goes straight to marriage.

Quote:
Parliament decided in 1995 to create a special commission, which was to investigate the possibility of same-sex marriages. At that moment, the Christian Democrats (Christian Democratic Appeal) were not part of the ruling coalition for the first time since the introduction of full democracy. The special commission finished its work in 1997 and concluded that civil marriage should be extended to include same-sex couples. After the election of 1998, the government promised to tackle the issue. In September 2000 the final legislation draft was debated in the Dutch Parliament.

The marriage bill passed the House of Representatives by 109 votes to 33. The Senate approved the bill on 19 December 2000. Only the Christian parties, which held 26 of the 75 seats at the time, voted against the bill. Though, after 2006, the Christian Democratic Appeal Party became the largest party in the coalition, it did not indicate any intention to repeal the law.
Quote:
On 1 January 1998, registered partnerships were introduced in Dutch law. The partnerships were meant for same-sex couples as an alternative to marriage, though they can also be entered into by opposite-sex couples, and in fact about one third of the registered partnerships between 1998 and 2001 were of opposite-sex couples. In law, registered partnerships and marriage convey the same rights and duties, especially after some laws were changed to remedy inequalities with respect to inheritance and some other issues.

Last edited by Maastricht; 05-10-2012 at 06:43 AM..
  #69  
Old 05-10-2012, 07:19 AM
Kozmik Kozmik is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eve View Post
Wow! Who knew Obama read The Straight Dope!
Yes, he does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The New York Times, May 10, 2012
Editorialists, columnists and bloggers criticized Mr. Obama as appearing calculating by his continued ambivalence.
You were authoritatively right, Eve. Although I am midly concerned with your use of weasel words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eve View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/op...=1&ref=opinion

That's pretty much what some people are saying: that he only is fudging on the issue because he's afraid that gay-hating Obama-lovers will flee rightward.
However, it's the exception that proves the rule because, "some people", i.e. "editoralists, columnists and bloggers", namely, Eve are saying that.


Congratulations, Eve - you've influenced the 24-hour news cycle.



I want our Eve to write articles like this.
  #70  
Old 05-10-2012, 07:39 AM
Eve Eve is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kozmik View Post
Congratulations, Eve - you've influenced the 24-hour news cycle.
Now if I can just get people to stop wearing gray with beige . . .

I enjoyed how Obama used the same words about same-sex marriage that Lincoln used about slavery: he's in favor of same-sex marriage, but it should be a state's-rights issue. I hope it works out better than it did back in 1860 . . .
  #71  
Old 05-10-2012, 07:51 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by furt View Post
But if it gets you all inspired to see a guy respond to years of political pressure by, in 2012, bravely, admirably, nay heroically adopting the same position Dick Cheney held in 1999, feel free. Just ignore those of us laughing at you.
I'd be more impressed with Cheney if he took that postion without having a gay daughter, or if he had used his influence to stop Bush from proposing an amendment to ban gay marriage. For a sitting president to adopt a position that could cost him dearly in an election year is courageous. I wouldn't say it's as brave as LBJ pushing for the Civil Rights Act, knowing it would give the south to the Republicans for generations, but it was a courageous move nonetheless.
  #72  
Old 05-10-2012, 07:54 AM
Martin Hyde Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
If Obama is really doing this because he feels a moral conviction then good for him. As a Republican I almost hope that we campaign heavily on this issue and have it bite us at the polling booth--the best thing that could happen to the Republican party is for the leadership to recognize the culture war that won elections for 20 years is no longer a profitable battleground long term and detracts from the core issues that have historically defined the party.

That being said, Obama is a politician's politician--I sincerely doubt he would take this stand if his strategists didn't find that it would be to his benefit in the electoral college. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but the Obama I've seen the past 5 years just wouldn't take a moral stand on something unless it benefited him politically.

My personal (and very non-mainstream) opinion on the issue is that up until the late 19th century the State had very little to do with marriage. It was a religious ceremony and ritual, since divorce was rare the legal system rarely had to deal with the legal ramifications of marriages.

I personally think that's the right way, I don't see why marriage needs to be an issue for government at all. I'm adamantly opposed to any tax advantages of marriage, or any government preference for married couples. I think for purposes of insurance (health, life, etc.) people should be able to generally define their "family" however they wish for the purposes of the policy. (With some reasonable limitations, for example you can include any dependent children and one adult who you designate as a "domestic partner" or whatever you want to call it.) I wouldn't be opposed to a system where you could file something with the local county court naming someone as your "designated beneficiary" meaning they would basically have primary inheritance rights to anything of yours when you died wherein you hadn't specifically named anyone else (i.e. 401k plans where you hadn't filled out beneficiary documents or etc.)

To me the gay marriage issue is only really important because we've let the State and other entities get too involved in marriage and too many important legal and financial agreements are heavily tied into marriage.
  #73  
Old 05-10-2012, 08:23 AM
hajario hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 12,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maastricht View Post
This Dutch woman says kudos' to Obama.

I would have thougth you guys in the US would have gone the same route we did in the Netherlands, in 2001, as the first country in the world. . First same-sex civil unions, "registered partnerships" were allowed; when that went okay, marriage followed about five years later. But apparently, Obama goes straight to marriage.
The state of California enacted same sex domestic partnerships in 1999.
  #74  
Old 05-10-2012, 09:06 AM
Eve Eve is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Well, we now have two identical threads in this forum, since someone started one in Great Debates and it got moved over here--why don't we merge them or just close mine?
  #75  
Old 05-10-2012, 09:08 AM
MsWhatsit MsWhatsit is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajario View Post
The state of California enacted same sex domestic partnerships in 1999.
The state of California is not a country.

Yet.
  #76  
Old 05-10-2012, 09:16 AM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
I have been loath to compare the situation to antimiscegination laws in the 1960s, mainly because people then didn't have the luxury of living together (they could, but it was strongly frowned upon) that people do today. Of course, many such laws forbade that, too.

But, how many people saying that Obama acted too soon would have said that of a politician in 1966 saying he wanted to reserve marriage for people of the same race? The polling numbers for pro-interacial marriage were much worse then than they are today for pro-SSM.

I think this will either help Obama or be neutral for him. It might hurt some Democrats running for Congress since now every national politician is going to be ask to take a stand on the issue. The Republicans are probably safe in that respect, although they have their own problems what with TPers forcing their purity tests on Senate candidates. You'd think they would have learned a thing or two from the Christine O'Donnell fiasco, but maybe that's asking too much.
  #77  
Old 05-10-2012, 09:17 AM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWhatsit View Post
The state of California is not a country.

Yet.
It's still larger than the Netherlands buy at least a factor of 2, and is larger than most European countries.
  #78  
Old 05-10-2012, 09:21 AM
MsWhatsit MsWhatsit is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
It's still larger than the Netherlands buy at least a factor of 2, and is larger than most European countries.
Yes, so if Maastricht had claimed that the Netherlands was the largest geographical area to legalize gay marriage, she'd have been wrong. But she said that it was the first country to do so.
  #79  
Old 05-10-2012, 09:35 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is online now
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 76,671
Modding

Since we now have two threads on this topic (the other was started in Great Debates) and with the OP's agreement, I'm closing this thread. The discussion continues here.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.