Heh. 
I’m surprised at how relatively quickly people seem to become ok with the idea of gay marriage. I don’t think it was possible to predict in 2008 that a Supreme Court - still pretty much under conservative control - would 7ish years later pretty much defacto make it legal in the US. In 2008 I thought the chance for gay marriage becoming legal during Obamas presidency was close to zero, but that there would be a chance that civil unions would be passed - effectively giving the LGBT community many of the legal protections it wanted/deserved.
I think civil unions had a much greater chance of being accepted, but turns out people are more progressive than I gave them credit for - or maybe I am less progressive than I thought.
Not at all surprised - and I am one that believes he is a secret atheist as well.
No gay person I know thought civil unions were a good thing, That separate and unequal nonsense was a nonstarter, not to mention bloody insulting.
I’ll admit I had my doubts. I liked Obama’s economic plans but I wasn’t sure I could trust him on the homophobia issue. Sure, he said the right things about opposing gay marriage but I could tell his heart wasn’t in it. I should have listened to my friends when they told me a black man could never be a real bigot.
Now I wish I had voted for a conservative. When they say they’re intolerant, you can count on it.
Nicely done.
Except blacks oppose SSM at a higher rate than whites. That may have changed recently, bit it was certainly true back in 2008.
If you keep in mind that a large segment of the population thought Sarah Palin was a born leader, a brilliant politician, the Future of the Republican Party, and just generally the greatest thing since sliced bread, it’s clear that low-information voters exist in large numbers. It might be flattering to think that no such voters would ever have voted for Obama, but I don’t think it’s axiomatic that idiots always vote Republican! 
I think you got whooshed here, brother. Don’t feel bad; I did too, for a moment.
That said, it’s my experience that, at least in Memphis, there’s plenty of homophobia and opposition to gay marriage to go around in my part of the black community, even among the younger set. I spent much of yesterday in the company of a fellow whose go-to-insults for other men were “sissy” and “faggot”; I know more black people my own age (mid 40s) who oppose SSM than not; and one of my beloved nieces (happily not the favorite) has not infrequently stated that she doesn’t mind gay people but resents when they throw their homosexuality in her face, by which she means hold hands in public.
Why the heck wouldn’t you?
No, it certainly was never a GOOD thing and you would not see most of my fellow fegelahs arguing for anything less than full marriage inside of the last 10 years or so. Until very, very recently, however, it was the best thing on the table. I don’t know about you, but making the perfect the enemy of the good never seems like a good idea to me. As long as people were at least allowing the notion of civil unions to be bruited about, the issue was still open and the possibility of, eventually, far in the future, actual marriage equality was still available.
It’s easy to forget just how QUICKLY acceptance of marriage equality has become mainstream. We’re not even talking about a decade here. Massachusetts was the first, in 2003, but it was really a pretty long time before anyone joined them. Windsor was decided in 2013, less than 2 years ago. The majority of states were ruled into it by the courts AFTER Windsor. In 2008, it was barely on the table and states were still in the process of passing amendments to ban it.
As others in this thread have noted, it was not the default, mainstream position until relatively recently. So I would never assume that someone had “always” been in favor of gay marriage without some reason for believing so, and I wondered what reason Onomatopoeia had (at the time, not just in retrospect).
I’m not surprised, because evidence that Obama was an early supporter of same-sex marriage had already come out.
I hear ya, but even ten years ago the idea that because the only option available to LGBTQs was a reprehensible and discriminatory one it had to be accepted simply boiled my blood. Listen, I had friends who were willing to compromise back then too. One of them actually said “better half a loaf than no bread at all” as I rolled my eyes in disgust. Roll over and accept discrimination once and you’ll be rolling over forever. Other friends, acquaintances, and even posters on this very board said “why not wait? There’s no reason to push it, these things take time.” BS. If there is anything worth fighting for, dying for if necessary, and not sitting by and waiting one bloody second for, it is equality, in all things, for all people.
Sorry for getting all het up, jayjay. I know you’re on my side. This issue is one of my buttons. :o
Am I the only one who thinks that perhaps Obama told the truth about his position on SSM?
I believe, as a matter of Christian faith, that I should tithe 10% to my church. I do not, however, think that such should be required as a matter of public policy.
Perhaps Obama believed, as a matter of Christian faith, that marriage should be between one man and one woman making a pledge sanctioned by God. Yet he could recognize that such a legal definition of marriage would be inconsistent with a secular non-discriminatory government protecting the rights of a disfavored minority.
“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” - Obama as a 1996 state Senate candidate
“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” Obama said at the time. “Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” - Obama before Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church
Quotes from Time magazine article
Personal belief, as a matter of faith for him personally, need not governs one’s beliefs about public policy in regards to a matter.
Look at Obama’s eyes when he was speaking to Warren and tell me you don’t hear the Eagles song in your head. His position in 1996 was then and is now his position. he was always for Gay marriage. All the “evolving” garbage was just that. Political expediency as practiced by every politician in history.
Not in the least surprising. He’s largely ignored trying to do anything either way so it seems like something he wasn’t making a major issue. From there he was just a leaf blowing on the political wind.
If true, many Jesuits would admire that casuistry.
He was asked that question in a run for public office, right? If so, then answering “I’m against gay marriage” and leaving out “in a purely personal capacity, not having anything to do with any policy I would adopt if I’m elected” would be on the same level of tortuousness as saying “that depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”.
It’s much more likely that his opposition was a wink wink nudge nudge.
Yeah, for a striking demonstration, take a look at this thread from just 2.5 years ago and contrast the differences in perspective from then to now.
Except Obama opposed SSM as a matter of public policy. It wasn’t just his personal opinion.
And, if we’re looking for lies, let’s not forget his half-hearted endorsement when he first came out, so to speak. He said it should be a matter for the states to decide. Hah! Not so much anymore.
Why is it such a big deal that a politician, especially one running for President should be “picking his battles”
The fact of the matter is that when he said that he supports the status quo, he wasn’t taking anything away from people.
When the time was right, and when he had to opportunity to advance the battle he took a more aggressive stance…
I can’t find anything too wrong with any of this…