Obama supports same sex marriage

[gamerunknown]

@Onomatopoeia

How has he avoided being fired?

Murdoch is facing some tough questions at the moment. He’s been asked about the blatant skew to his reporting before, he probably wants to make a last ditch attempt to argue equivalence. Besides:

@Chomsky

In fact, if the system functions well, it ought to have a liberal bias, or at least appear to. Because if it appears to have a liberal bias, that will serve to bound thought even more effectively.

[What_the]

What did Obama say about leaving it up to the states? Is that just a pragmatic tactic?

… or are other issues ok being left up to the states?

[Marley23]

@What_the

Is that just a pragmatic tactic?

Yes.

[yorick73]

@elucidator

I always thought he was pretty clear about it. He had reservations about the religious implications of “marriage”. (We may very well overestimate just how “secular” Obama is, he has always identified himself as a religious man, just like everybody else does, its just that he may actually mean it). But he always supported equality, and seemed to be of the opinion that an entirely secular solution was useful, i.e., civil unions. And remember, for quite a while, that was considered a viable option. I think it still is, so long as the legal protections are identical. If two people want a church wedding in addition to their civil union, what’s the problem?

For reasons I don’t quite understand, the argument has moved from that spot. OK, then, so be it. One adjusts, or one does not. People appear to be convinced that even if the actual legal protections are identical, the semantic distinction between “marriage” and “civil union” is, by its very nature, discriminatory and unequal. I don’t quite agree, so long as we are vigilant.

Obviously, we cannot force churches who are unwilling to perform weddings for gay people to do so. And if the distinction between “marriage” and "civil union’ means that much to them, perhaps we can accommodate that.

But if one side refuses to accept a secular compromise due to a semantic issue, and the other side refuses to accept such a compromise for a semantic issue, well, then, we have to ignore the semantics. His call is correct.

I’m really surprised that you have not been clubbed over the head for this post. I’ve seen posters around here take a lot of heat for saying less. I agree with you by the way.

[XT]

Why should anyone club him on the head for that?? He’s quite correct (I was going to say ‘right’ but then thought it might be offensive ;)). I think 'luci should be encouraged when he posts something that clear and snark free that is also pretty much right on target.

Agree with him here 100%…I think this was indeed what Obama was struggling with, and that his current position has been one of moving towards it the whole time while having earlier religious reservations. While I think the whole ‘marriage must be between a man and a woman’ religious thingy is stupid, silly and unfair, I can understand how folks with a lot of religious conviction could be torn over it. I’m glad that Obama seems to have overcome this, been able to move beyond and above it and come to what I think is the only conclusion anyone with an ounce of compassion and empathy COULD come too.

-XT

[John_Mace]

Some of you may be surprised at this, but apparently Hollywood approves.

[Jophiel]

Public opinion at large has been rapidly shifting on SSM over the past decade. If all those people changed their opinions, why think the president has been immune or can only change as a political ploy?

[yorick73]

@XT

Why should anyone club him on the head for that?? He’s quite correct (I was going to say ‘right’ but then thought it might be offensive ;)). I think 'luci should be encouraged when he posts something that clear and snark free that is also pretty much right on target.

Agree with him here 100%…I think this was indeed what Obama was struggling with, and that his current position has been one of moving towards it the whole time while having earlier religious reservations. While I think the whole ‘marriage must be between a man and a woman’ religious thingy is stupid, silly and unfair, I can understand how folks with a lot of religious conviction could be torn over it. I’m glad that Obama seems to have overcome this, been able to move beyond and above it and come to what I think is the only conclusion anyone with an ounce of compassion and empathy COULD come too.

-XT

I don’t think he should be clubbed for the post. I’ve seen a lot of threads where posters attack those they basically agree with because they took one step off the reservation. Around here the sentiment is either you agree with gay marriage without even a scintilla of a difference between it and straight marriage…including calling it a marriage. Watch how Jack Batty gets clubbed over the head in this thread when he mentions being “hung-up” on the word “marriage”.

[John_Mace]

@Jophiel

Public opinion at large has been rapidly shifting on SSM over the past decade. If all those people changed their opinions, why think the president has been immune or can only change as a political ploy?

Because it doesn’t fit into the suite of other political stances he has, and because he is on record as being for it before he became a national figure. And his explanation was really lame.

[Lightnin]

@John_Mace

Because it doesn’t fit into the suite of other political stances he has…

Which ones, exactly?

[Chronos]

Around here the sentiment is either you agree with gay marriage without even a scintilla of a difference between it and straight marriage…including calling it a marriage.

Either the word itself is important, or it’s not. Either way leads to the same conclusion, that we should let same-sex couples use it the same as everyone else.

[yorick73]

@Chronos

Either the word itself is important, or it’s not. Either way leads to the same conclusion, that we should let same-sex couples use it the same as everyone else.

I don’t understand what point you are trying to make here. Did you read my post and comprehend what I was referring to? Or did you just zero in on that one sentence and decide to hit reply?

Take it up with that heretic Elucidator

[John_Mace]

@Lightnin

Which ones, exactly?

Abortion
“Free” Contraception
Eliminate DADT
Affirmative Action
Fair Pay Act (equal pay for women doing equal work)
Health Care

But you could just lump him in with “urban Democrats”, and he’d be in a distinct minority if he was anti-SSM. In the entire state of NY, the anti-SSM crowd among Democrats is only about 25%. I couldn’t find numbers for Chicago alone or NYC alone, but you can be sure it’s going to be lower than NY state as a whole.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I have my doubts that even a “vigilant” stand will keep “marriage” and “civil union” from sliding into separate but unequal, but I wouldn’t club anyone for being hopeful about it, if a bit naive.

[Chimera]

“Ok Biden, now say something about decriminalizing pot.”

[What_the]

@Marley23

Yes.

Then is it just a pragmatic tactic presented as such… i.e. “I’m all for gay marriage in every way but the best way to get it done at this time is to go thru the states” ?

Or is it a pragmatic tactic to say “It’s my personal opinion and the states should decide.” just to keep a few voters that don’t see thru that lie?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

All the anti-gay arguments summed up by one well-spoken elderly woman, who thoughtfully wrote them down so she would not forget any.

[wonky]

@Exapno_Mapcase

All the anti-gay arguments summed up by one well-spoken elderly woman, who thoughtfully wrote them down so she would not forget any.

THe guy behind her is awesome.

[MyFootsZZZ]

@Exapno_Mapcase

All the anti-gay arguments summed up by one well-spoken elderly woman, who thoughtfully wrote them down so she would not forget any.

That woman’s got it all figured out!

[Vomuco]

You do have to admire his political will. He knows that he’ll get a lot of heat because of this decision and yet, he made it. Can’t say the same for other world leaders.