Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Do you support gay marriage?

By Howard B. Owens
Lorie Longhany

Back in the 60's many states had laws prohibiting mixed races from marrying. Thankfully, we are a country that progresses and evolves when we have it wrong. Thankfully marriage equality rights have moved exponentially in favor of equality fairly quickly and painlessly in a country where change often comes much harder.

This is simple -- equal protection, equal rights under the law. If you don't like gay marriage -- don't marry someone of your own sex.

May 10, 2012, 8:14am Permalink
Ken Herrmann

Only Tea Party members should be allowed to marry other Tea Party members - if they are of the opposite sex, belong to the same tribe, avoid miscenination, believe in the same God, and each own a gun.

May 10, 2012, 8:24am Permalink
Thomas Schneider

I support getting the state out of all marriages. Consenting adults should be free to enter into contracts with whom ever they see fit. What exactly does your $40 get you besides a file in a cabinet some where?

May 10, 2012, 9:32am Permalink
Mark Brudz

This shouldn't be a federal issue one way or the other, it is clearly a State Government issue in the first place.

What amazes me is that people fail to see that this is nothing more than a diversion away from real issues, like the economy, a business environment that fosters jobs growth and dismal economic numbers.

New York State allows gay marraige, as does most of the states in the North East, 30 States ban gay marraige, 4 more have upcoming votes IN THIER STATE.

Personally, I care not, religiously, marraige should be between Man and Woman, politically, not everyone shares my religion so if a gay couple wants to marry, that is between them and the state within which they reside.

In the end, The Obama campaign will get more money from Gay Rights groups because of his 4th evolution on this issue,Reporters will continue to ask Romney about it when he wants to talk about the economy. It will have no bearing on the election, and voters in each state will either Ban or Allow gay marraige on a state by state basis.

So I say, live and let live and let's spend our time discussing things that really matter.

May 10, 2012, 9:59am Permalink
Tim Miller

I agree...

Let the religious have the word "marriage". They can control who they decide to bestow that title to. Let the true law of the land handle civil unions.

And to keep things truly separate (as they should be), just because you are married by a religious figure does NOT make that a legal civil union. Why should a guy (or gal) with a funny collar or hat have the right to determine a legal contract?

May 10, 2012, 9:59am Permalink
Dave Olsen

I agree with Thomas and Mark, the government has no business defining marriage. If someone hadn't sought to do so long ago, we wouldn't be in this mess. It should be a civil union legally between 2 adults, no children, which protects the rights of the union. If one wants to have their personal religion sanctify the union, that's great. I don't dislike traditions, just don't like them forced upon others.

May 10, 2012, 10:32am Permalink
Mark Brudz

This is what scares me about this discussion;…

This will once again morph nationally from what should be a simple States Rights Issue to an attack on religion and personal belief.

Those who get married in a church, usually do so because of thier faith, not because of the contractual ramifications. Likewise, if as parents we choose to send our children to parochial schools to educate of children not only academically, but also as a continuance of our personal faith, that should not be the governments business either.

May 10, 2012, 10:55am Permalink
Kyle Couchman

My viewpoint is this shouldnt be an issue at all.... Atheists are allowed to marry, there are marriages that occur outside the set boundaries of the church. If a couple wants to get married by a secular authority then they must follow the tenets of that particular faith. However if they want a civil service then the sexes of either side of the couple shouldnt make a difference.

Its very disingenous of state or federal Govts to on one hand, remove God from public buildings, oaths and remove religious symbols from the same, based on their claims of separation of church and state. But then turn to the church for justification in not allowing same sex marriages, at least in civil ceremonies.

May 10, 2012, 11:20am Permalink
Mark Brudz

Because you are born black, yellow, red or white, you have no choice, therefore, you have basic rights.

Marraige, civil union and sexual preference are a choice (I know some believe otherwise, I do not agree) it is not a right it is a privilage.

It is moot in NYState, Gay marraige is acceptable under the law.

I stand by my original statement, this is merely a political diversion at this point.

May 10, 2012, 11:58am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Mark, since you can't read minds, you couldn't possibly know if it's a choice. I believe your born gay or straight, there is no choice. I always wonder why people care? How can it possibly effect you? Why try to enforce your sense of morality on another person? It's simply none of your business. Why devote even a second of time to thinking about how another person wants to live?

May 10, 2012, 12:28pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

I actually do not care who a person shares thier life with Charlie. That aside, this really was prompted recent news events.

And like I said twice before, merely a diversion from real issues.

What struck me were the responses to this poll which bolsters my view that emotion at this point in our history is totally confused with the basis of law which should be guiding us in matters of government, but that is an entirely different topic for another day I guess.

On this matter, it is simply this, A right is something that we are born with and we die with and is endowed by our creator (Whether you believe that to be God, Mopther Nature or the Greek gods checker board)

A privilage is a right conveyed by an authority that can be granted and thus can be taken away. A maraige is a civil union, it has legal, finacial and tax implications therefore a contract that affects not only the couple in question but others around them, there are Church sanctioned marraiges which are still a civil union but sanctioned by a persons religion based on thier faith.

In NY State, gay marraige is legal, so be it, have at it if you like and I hope you (You in the general sense BTW) enjoy it. In other states that may or may not be the case, but because a marraige or civil union is Licensed, it is not a right, it is a priilage, and some may argue not necessary at all.

May 10, 2012, 1:04pm Permalink
Beth Kinsley

Just curious Mark - did you make a conscious decision to be heterosexual (assuming you are)? Did you just wake up one day and decide that you were going to be straight or was it a long and arduous decision process?

May 10, 2012, 1:06pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Well Beth if I say yes, that would open the question as to when and how, if I say no well then an entire set of questions.

So I will say this, your question is exactly an example of what I said about emotion vs point of law. I will attempot this one more time.

Whether someone is gay or not absolutely makes no difference to me one way or the other, I do in fact have some very close friends that are gay and do live in a civil union.

As I stated three times now, a "MARRAIGE" is a civil contract, a religiously sanctioned marraige is a civil; contract sanctioned by one's church

Regardless, a civil union is a license granted by the State in which people reside and because of that, whether or not a gay marraige (Civil Union) is a matter that is as it should be decided by the voters of each individual state.

A religious marraige cermony is a matter of a civil union being validated in the eyes of one's church and not a question of legalalty at all,

Finally, this entire issue is being discussed because of the political gamsmanship of the President this week, which if you listenb to what he said, "I personal have come to believe that Gay Marraige should be acceptable and I also believe that it is a question that must beresolved at the state level"

Bottom line, the entire circus evolving around this was to placate some of his supporters that he needs donations from, and even Democrat Pundits on news shows this morning are echoing that.

Hear this please, I do not care one way or the other who a person shares his or her life with, that is thier decision and I respect that, I do not care what happens in any other state with regard to this issue because I live in New York State where the decision has already been made.

And if anyone thinks that this entire issue that came up this week is anything less than a well planned political distraction, they are politically naive.

May 10, 2012, 1:31pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Mark, you say this is a diversion from "real" issues. I think civil rights is a real issue. The recent primary exposed the GOP to be out of step on soical issues. These issues are going to be rolling out one by one over the next six months. That doesn't surprise me and I think that's the point your trying to make. I think for many of us, there are issues like this that are non-starters. Civil rights is a big one. The president obviously wants to remind us all of where he differs from his opponent.

The president coming out for this issue the same day a swing state voted it down, shows strength of character.

May 10, 2012, 1:41pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Mark: "On this matter, it is simply this, A right is something that we are born with and we die with and is endowed by our creator" You mean like Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If one person is not allowed to participate in decisions about say, end of life choices for someone they had pledged to share their life with and discussed that issue with because that person is not considered a legitimate spouse by the law where they live; is not their basic human right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness being infringed upon? Somewhere back in time it got decided that a government entity should define what is or is not a legitimate marriage and so therefor is stomping on somebody's rights. I'm sure it started with someone suing someone and a vague spot in the law found to squirm through for some nefarious reason, and so then it had to be defined. I'm always against government involvement in how someone lives their life, but unfortunately here we are dealing with the mistakes of the past.

May 10, 2012, 1:57pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

If you believe that Charlie, fine, I don't.

Your assertion about GOP exposure, believe that too if you will that is fine, I don't

I totally disagree with you on tyhe President's take, it was too orchestrated, Sunday Joe Biden goes on meet the press and makes a statement supposedly contrary to the President's stated view.
Monday Arne Duncan makes similar statem,ent and White house says presidents view evolving

Wednesday President comes out with new position, which BTW he changfed several times since 1998, when he lost an election bid in 1998 and was for gay marraige, he came back in next race for Illiinois State senate against Gay marraige 2 years later.

This weeks and last weeks economic numbers HORRIBLE, gay rights issue. Soon a pattern developes you know.

You don't think it is a distraction? Well then why are we discussing this instead of dissmal economic numbers? Further, he said it is matter of each individual state himself, so why bring this up at all if not to distract?

This ios not going to be an issue at all in November,

And BTW , my gay friends, One is a Retired Marine Msgt that works for a GOP Senator.... the anti gay sediment you guys keep throwing around is only a product of, not a reality at all.

May 10, 2012, 1:58pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

You might say that Dave, or you might say that the Pursuit of Liberty and Happiness does not mean the right to Liberty and happiness, it is all in your take.

Anyone can live with whoever want, I am all for that. I am not even against Gay marraige legally speaking at all.

My observation was that this issue strikes emotion from all directions, emotion strikes debate from all directions, the economy is still slipping backwards again and no one is discussing it today.

Ironically as I type this Air Force 1 just took off taking the President to a fundraiser thrown by a gay activist. funny how things work out

May 10, 2012, 2:08pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Mark; My take is this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

I don't twist the words around or try to read anything into it. Pretty plain and simple even for a big dumb country boy like me.

Anyway, I disagree with the good Doctor on a very few points (I know gasp) this is one of them. States don't have the right to decide this, The Constitution of the United States already did (see above) so people can decide for themselves who to marry and it's nobody else's business. Legal unions can be entered into by anyone for any reason and all should be treated the same. I think You and I are on the same page at the end of the day. I believe there should continue to be laws governing the marriage of children, but other than that...................

And yeah, surprise, surprise, surprise. Obama is going to a fund raiser by a gay activist the day after his belief evolves. I highly detest what this political process of ours has become.

May 10, 2012, 2:35pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Dave, We aren't very far away from each other.

My take comes from the 10th Amendment

<b>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.</b>

May 10, 2012, 2:54pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Howard, did you take away the edit button?

I need to edit my comment # 23 . I referred to the "Unalienable rights" passage of the Declaration of Independence as being part of the Constitution. It is not. I should have referred to the 9th amendment which protects individual rights not specifically enumerated, or something like that. Anyway...........

May 10, 2012, 3:07pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Sexuality is a choice? Wow, all of those gay teen suicides that come about because of bullying are because they made a choice to be gay. Keep it classy.

May 10, 2012, 3:16pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Enhance your calm Daniel Jones

The issue that I make is only that the legality of gay marraige should be decided by each individual state, and that this being in the news is merely a diversion from more pressing issues, no more no less.

May 10, 2012, 3:22pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

I am calm, Mark, it's a sad, overused tactic that a disagreement on any issue (but especially this one) is indicative that the other person is flying off the handle. You yourself said that sexuality is a choice, the debate about marriage equality aside, I'd like to know how you know that is true?

May 10, 2012, 3:29pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Daniel I don't, and I hardly flew off the handle. I based my belief on many, and I mean many conversations with gay friends who I surprisingly also found divided on whether it was choice or birth,

And if you re-read all my post on this thread I repeatedly said I don't care about one's sexual orientation one way or the other. Frankly I choose my friends based on character.

But again, that is not the issue that I am debating, nor the basis of my argument.

(Enhance your calm was not meant as an insult or accusation eithert, it is a movie line simply forwarded for leveity.

The Movie "The Demolition Man"

Sandra Bulloch said to Sly Stallone when his charactor questioned a law,
"Enhance your calm John Spartan..............All physical contact between humans was deemed dangerous therefore all sex has become illegal"

May 10, 2012, 3:45pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Lorie makes an excellent point in this "Back in the 60's many states had laws prohibiting mixed races from marrying. Thankfully, we are a country that progresses and evolves when we have it wrong." Which is precisely what makes Obama's "historic evolution" (we used to call it flip flopping) such an insult to the gay community. If during that same period where mixed race marriages were illegal, a politician said that though he personally supported inter-racial marriage but thought it best left up to the states to decide, that person would and should be excoriated for such a hypocritical and political stance. If two American citizens are married, then they should be legally married in all 50 states. If Obama were true to his convictions (and not in an election year) he would have stated unequivocally that he believed that same sex couples should be able to marry and that he would see to it that it became the law of the land so that no two gay American citizens would be accepted in one state and devalued in another. That was the essence of the mixed race marriage battle. There is no difference, he showed zero leadership, he hid behind the "states rights" stance, he led from behind after President Biden set him up, and summarily threw those he claims to support into the wind. So in Obamas case, where is the progress? Where is the evolution? Where is the stand on principles? As far as I'm concerned he continues to patronize the gay community and treat them as political tools. They should be incensed, this is nothing more than his political "Don't ask, Don't tell"

May 10, 2012, 3:52pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Jeff - Yawn. Nice attempt at a straw-man with the 'evolution was based in political calculation' (when in reality it probably does him more harm than good on the surface) and the 'VP made him do it' argument, which simply isn't true, just another conspiracy like the birther movement. His convictions were the same, but his views on one particular matter evolved and changed into what he supports today. Quite frankly, this is a big risk and shows tremendous character heading into an election year. The notion that marriage laws should be decided at the state level is not an argument that your candidate, Rick Santorum, agreed with.

May 10, 2012, 3:58pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

It is nice to be young and idealistic Daniel, enjoy it while it last. You said in the past that you wanted to work in politics if I remember,

If so, perhaps you should break th eyawn, dry your eys and read the Tea Leaves

May 10, 2012, 3:59pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Oh and Daniel, 2 minutes ago it was announced - $1 miilion raised from Gay Rights groups in 90 minutes immediately following the Presidents statement on ABC, risk NOT, calculation you decide

May 10, 2012, 4:02pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Mark - I do work in politics, and given the popularity of marriage equality in swing states (like North Carolina where it went down big) the fact that he took this stand makes it laudable. I do just fine, the tea leaves are pretty wide open with Obama leading Romney by 7 in Ohio, and 10 in Iowa, including having a 25 point lead among moderate voters in Ohio. The Republicans have spent the last few years chasing moderates away from their party, and I'm the idealist? Wow. That's a skewed definition.

May 10, 2012, 4:08pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

In this election, the realists are the people who don't want to keep using a strategy that caused the recession. On gay rights, the marriage equality issue aside, those who believe that sexuality is a choice and use the bible as justification for it are void of knowledge about human nature, or the bible for that matter.

May 10, 2012, 4:11pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

National tracking polls are worthless, anyone who is worth their salt in politics will tell you that. What matters is state by state polls. All of the aggregates of recent polls have Obama leading in Ohio, Pennslyvania and Virginia. Rassmussen also has a shaky reputation, the best pollsters I've found are PPP (D), Opinion Dynamics (R) and then Siena and Quinnipiac, which are objective. Perhaps you ought to look at the map.

May 10, 2012, 4:22pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

I don't read the DNC talking points, believe it or not I just watch the news and form my own opinions, I don't need help from talking heads on either side of the aisle. They're good for factual analysis of current political events, but I don't need them to form my ideology.

May 10, 2012, 4:23pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Oh, and then there's this hilarious notion that Democrats are idealists from the people who nearly worship at the altar of Saint Reagan and continue the same policies that cause stock market crashes and recessions. Even Reagan would probably find the current crop of the GOP to be inert at best, and extreme at worst.

May 10, 2012, 4:31pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Daniel, I can see you skimmed my post and made pre-drawn conclusions based on me and not the content of what I wrote. There is no straw man, he showed absolutely no principle, no character, no leadership. He hid behind the oft used political cover of "states rights". I reject both Republicans and Democrats who hide behind states rights on this and other politically touchy issues. If two American citizens are married, then they are married in all 50 states, period. Anything less is marginalization. That is why marriage should not be a states issue. Obama failed the gay community by not going the full in principled step of supporting federalization of marriage equality. Although I would disagree, I would at least respect the true show of principle. Believe what you believe and fight for it. Don't hide behind political hijinks and claim to support a group of people while at the same time marginalizing them. What Barack Obama said yesterday was exactly, EXACTLY what Dick Cheney said in 2009 on the issue and I don't recall him being hailed for his historic principled leadership.

May 10, 2012, 4:33pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Ok I am not going to get hooked up in another 140 post thread.

1) 270 to win is a DNC sponsored site

2) I am well aware of state to state over national polls, follow some of Rassmussen links to follow trends

3) There is a 10% undecided vote in the key elector states, only once in the past 32 years has any president won more than 10% of the undecided vote, That was GW in 2004 and pretty much because of serious gaffs Kerry made in the final weeks of the election and some in the debates. Undecideds typically are not happy with the incumbant. So if undecideds break 6-4 for Romney, Romney wins election by 2 points in Fla, Va, and Ohio game over.

4)And this is the big one, it is going to ultimately be about the economy, which is exactly why the administration is diverting. The stars do not favor the president in the next 90 days for a multitude of reasons, and that 90 days fals smack in the middle of a crucial time for voters making up thier minds.

Now, this is something I am sure that we will debating often over the coming months. as for this thread. I have been pretty consistant on my stance.

This was a clearly and unequivably a two prong strategy, one to gin up support from those opposed to DOMA, and two to try and change the make up of the debate. Anyone who really understands politics can see that. Whether it works in the long term,. we will see

May 10, 2012, 4:40pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Normally I'm big on states rights, Jeff, but you make a very good point. And it's not even close to being a straw man under the proper definition of the term.

May 10, 2012, 4:47pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Jeff while I do not agree with you on states rights persee, I do believe that a state should honor a marital contract or civil union entered into in another state.

I totally agree with you that Obama is pandering

And I should have remembered the Chaney quote, you are absolutely correct it is almost verbatim

May 10, 2012, 4:48pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Ok Mark first I have to burst your bubble, but you said....""I didn't exactly say it that way Tim, a marraige perfomed by the clergy DOES infact equal a civil Union BTW. But on basic premis we agree""

Marriage is not equal to a Civil union at least it wasnt legally til 2000. Before you make your argument read up on the history of civil unions. Here is a little help...

A civil union is a legally recognized union similar to marriage. Many people are critical of civil unions because they say they represent separate status unequal to marriage ("marriage apartheid").[1][2] Civil Unions are often viewed by same-sex marriage supporters as "separate but equal." Some opponents of same-sex marriage are critical because they say civil unions allow same-sex marriage by using a different name.

In the United States, civil unions first became available in Vermont on 1 July 2000. Connecticut legalized civil unions in 2005 and in 2007, New Jersey and New Hampshire followed suit. In December 2010, Illinois passed a civil union law, which became effective on 1 June 2011. Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Delaware enacted civil union laws in 2011, which have all gone into effect.

In addition, domestic partnerships in California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and the District of Columbia are effectively civil unions in that they convey all (or nearly all) of the legal rights, benefits, obligations, honors, and privileges of marriage. Domestic partnerships from these jurisdictions are fully honored in states with civil unions and vice versa.

May 10, 2012, 4:53pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Well I am not perfect Kyle but I do appreciate you going to wikepedia to show me the errors of my ways.

I should have said civil marraige to be exactly correct, but that in no way changes the premise or my argument.

And again, remember, I simply do not care whether they exist or not, my arguement has been solely, steadfastly that this is just a diversion from matters that will truly have an effect on the election. Just political theater. My retort to to Tim was because he made that column about a "Funny Little Collar"


May 10, 2012, 5:09pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Howard, I too am a big states rights advocate, but this is not an issue that fits. How is being 3/5 of a person any more or less offensive than being legally married in only 3/5 of your country of citizenship?

May 10, 2012, 5:09pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Now as to the question of Marriage being a right, well in the eyes of law, currently it is considered a civil right. Here is a couple of things from the internet which support it...

Many argue that marriage is essentially and necessarily a religious rite — they conceive of marriage in almost exclusively religious terms. Therefore, legalizing gay marriage constitutes a type of sacrilege and an unjustified intrusion of the state into what is necessarily a religious matter. Because of religion's traditional role in sanctifying marriages and presiding over wedding ceremonies this is understandable, but it's also incorrect.

The nature of marriage has varied greatly from one era to the next and from one society to the next. In fact, the nature of marriage has varied so much that it is difficult to come up with any one definition of marriage which adequately covers every permutation of the institution in every society which has thus far been studied. This variety alone ensures the falsehood of the claim that marriage is necessarily religious, but even if we focus exclusively on the West — or even exclusively on America — we still find that religion has not been regarded as a necessary component.

Although the details of marital practice varied widely among Revolutionary-era Americans, there was a broadly shared understanding of the essentials of the institution. The most important was the unity of husband and wife. The "sublime and refined...principle of union" joining the two was the "most important consequence of marriage," according to James Wilson, a preeminent statesman and legal philosopher.

The consent of both was also essential. "The agreement of both parties, the essence of every rational contract, is indispensably required," Wilson said in lectures delivered in 1792. He saw mutual consent as the hallmark of marriage — more basic than cohabitation.

Everyone spoke of the marriage contract. Yet as a contract it was unique, for the parties did not set their own terms. The man and woman consented to marry, but public authorities set the terms of the marriage, so that it brought predictable rewards and duties. Once the union was formed, its obligations were fixed in common law. Husband and wife each assumed a new legal status as well as a new status in their community. That means neither could break the terms set without offending the larger community, the law, and the state, as much as offending the partner.

[M]arriage is not merely a contract between two people. It is a contract between two people and their community. When two people approach the altar or the bench to marry, they approach not only the presiding official but all of society. They enter into a compact not just with each other but with the world, and that compact says: "We, the two of us, pledge to make a home together, care for one another, and, perhaps, raise children together.

In exchange for the caregiving commitment we are making, you, our community, will recognize us not only as individuals but as a bonded pair, a family, granting us a special autonomy and a special status which only marriage conveys. We, the couple, will support one another. You, society, will support us. You expect us to be there for each other and will help us meet those expectations. We will do our best, until death do us part.

Marriage in America is indeed a contract — a contract that comes with more obligations than rights. Marriage is a civil right that is not now and has never been dependent upon any one religion or even religion in general for its justification, existence, or perpetuation. Marriage exists because people desire it and the community, working through the government, helps ensure that married couples are able to do what they need to in order to survive. At no point is religion needed or necessarily relevant.

That seems pretty clear to me. Now as I said before marriage is something that everyone has had a right to since before recorded history, but today one can be atheist and still get married regardless of race, or religion. Now there is sexual preference to be considered. Does it seem very fair or American to deny it? I dont think so. Thats the way I feel and as I have stated before, state or federal govt are very disingenuous in taking away the ten commandments, and trying to separate themselves from religion to the point of making Merry Christmas politically incorrect to say. But then hide behind religious doctrine or dogma when it comes to marriage, you can't have it both ways.

May 10, 2012, 5:23pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Well Kyle, all of your dedicated research aside, and I mean that seriously because you really did do a very indepth bit of research,it changes not my essential argument. That the fact that we are discussing this right now, is because the President in a bid for re-election needed to appease his anti DOMA supporters and at the same time change the political debate to take attention of what is looking to be a very turbulent economic quarter. but let's be clear here, this is not really a DEM/GOP issue either.


As far as the gay activist Obama is courting are concerned, This is all about the repeal of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
The origins of DOMA however are quite bipartisan

In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."He also wrote that "raising this issue is divisive and unnecessary."


The bill moved through Congress on a legislative fast track and met with overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled Congress, passing by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate and a vote of 342–67 in the House. Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14 (with Pryor of Arkansas absent), and Democratic Representatives voted for it 188 to 65, with 15 not participating. All Republicans in both houses voted for the bill with the sole exception of the one gay Republican, Rep. Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin.

Unlike Obamacare it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support not a mere 7 votes in the house and 3 in the Senate

On the day it passed the House, a White House spokesman called the legislation "gay baiting". Clinton, who was traveling when Congress acted, signed it into law promptly upon returning to Washington, D.C., on September 21, 1996. The White House released a statement in which Clinton said "that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation".

May 10, 2012, 5:46pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

The president is giving us a real choice. Support those who would turn a blind eye to the rights of others or not.

There is no need for Mark or Jeff to agree. History will catch up and anyone who suggests we are not all equals is on the wrong side of it.

May 10, 2012, 8:07pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Charlie, I am surprised that you are being drawn into Obama's facade of principle. His evolution based on his statement yesterday is actually regressive if you apply logic and historical context to it. I will put this in the most direct and straightforward terminology to put this issue into equal perspective (and possibly have this post removed). It was not and should never have been acceptable for a white person to be legally married to a black person in one state then be rejected and marginalized as a nigger lover in the next state. If someone truly supports gay marriage and yet leaves it up to the states to decide, then they give credence to the concept of two gay people being legally married in one state be rejected and marginalized by a state that tells them they don't allow faggots to marry. That is the cold hard reality of bigotry in this country. When one claims to stand on principle and yet falls so short of the true core of that belief, it is no principle at all.

May 10, 2012, 8:33pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Jeff, I understand and agree with you to a point. It would be ideal if it was possible for the president to go further. You know its not in this political climate. We live in an age where it is still acceptable to heckle a gay soldier on the battlefield. We have a candidate for president who said nothing when it happened live in front of him. An American state voted against the rights of others just this week. We still live in a hateful society and we all have some evolving to do.

May 10, 2012, 8:40pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Charlie where do you get off saying things like that, oh I forgot your vast power of assumption.

I served this country for 20 years, have shared tents, tables and even toilets with men and women of all races. My best friend is a retired Marine Master Sargent that happens to be gay and by the way a Repuplican Senatorial Staffer.

I have have said repeatedly on this thread, my issue is NOT with gay marraige at all, it was all along that this is a ruse to turn discussion away from dismal economic forecast which even is being said by some democratic pundits.

I have yet to meet a Republican that was anti Gay or anti woman and I know many including current representatives in the house and a few seanators.

On almost every political thread on this site you shoot of from the hip and are a prime example of what I mean when I say argue with emotion not with fact.

You did many good things when you held office, I didn't agree with everything, but overall your tenure on the Council was a positive thing for the community.

It is a shame that you diminish that on a regular basis with cocky, often mean spirited barbs that rarely are supported by fact and almost always are clearly an opinion. I know you did not conduct yourself that way when you served the city, it is a shame that you seem to thrive on that now.

May 10, 2012, 8:45pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

Until someone can show me a valid legal argument why the government needs to designate gender within marriage, it's all a crock to me.

The government, any church, or anybody's personal prejudice should have ZERO say on who gets married to who. This is not a state issue, it's a non issue.

It continues because people are hateful. Plain and Simple. Why is there even a vote? Stop calling this a free nation when we continue to restrict people's freedoms.

Again, show me a legal argument.

May 10, 2012, 8:52pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Charlie, we agree on the concept of what's going on here but when the President factors in the political climate, then he is not making a statement of principle, he is making a calculated move for his own political future while still holding the gay community at arms length with states rights. He has zero history of being a states rights guy until this issue. When he marginalizes the gay community on this issue, he contributes to the atmosphere of hate, when issues are reduced to race, class, gender, or social standing unilaterally, they contribute to hatred in our society. It is time to own up to the false bill of goods this President is selling us at every turn and call him out for the hypocrite that he is. He is devisive, he leads from the polls or from behind, he passes the buck on important issues. He has been a terrible President and now he is trying to sell the American people on this premise of true conviction when it is nothing more than hollow politispeak.

May 10, 2012, 8:58pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

Mark wrote:

I have yet to meet a Republican that was anti Gay or anti woman and I know many including current representatives in the house and a few seanators.

Then what you met/know is people who do not understand what their party once stood for. They stand against issues based on what? Religious principles? Personal disdain? It's sickening to me. I am tired of "Conservatives" who preach less government and more personal liberties, then fight legislation to allow personal liberties. Who people marry is NONE OF ANYONE'S BUSINESS!!!!


May 10, 2012, 8:58pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Phil, please read all my post, I never, not once said anything different, that was never not the issue.

The issue was that the President created this debate to change the discussion,. it worked and tripped up Santorum, but it hasn't tripped up Romney so far who has been absolutely on message.

The discusion was about the politics of the timing

May 10, 2012, 9:04pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

I agree with that Mark, but it's important nonetheless.

Romney is a joke, so if anyone is going to tell me that he is a better choice than Obama, I don't see it. They are equal in my mind, but in this matter I have Romney continuing the BS tradition of reducing rights based on his pointless base's views. Obama's stepping out and drawing a line in the sand.

It doesn't mean that I'll vote for him, but Romney has lost any chance of my support. Period.

May 10, 2012, 9:11pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Mark, You said being gay was a choice. Have you evolved since 11:58AM? If your backing away from this statement, let me know.

"Because you are born black, yellow, red or white, you have no choice, therefore, you have basic rights.Marraige, civil union and sexual preference are a choice (I know some believe otherwise, I do not agree) it is not a right it is a privilage."

May 10, 2012, 9:23pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Mark, of course this issue is pure politics. There is a decision to be made. For many of us this is a non-starter. That's why the president is spotlighting this issue. Many of us would never vote for a president who does not support basic human rights.

May 10, 2012, 9:21pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

And that is fine Phil, you are a true libertarian and I respect that.

I always appreciate your carefully weighed opinions and your abilty to recognize that not everyone shares them.

I find that I agree with you on some points and disagree on others that is what it is all about.

Again, and I can't say this enough, I have no problem with gay marraige, civil union or what ever you call it, my problem here is that the President, and apparently many that blindly support him are being sucked into this discussion in order to take thier eye off the ball, I do not and doubt I ever will catagorize you that way.

May 10, 2012, 9:22pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

My dear friend Charlie, it is a non starter because there will never be a constitutional amendment for or against gay marraige, only a handful of representatives on the right or left want to play this tug of war.

And Remember, the President himself wednesday morning said it was an issue for states to decide.

The only thing that we can hope for, and I actually agree with the following premis, is a modification of DOMA that would make a marraige constitued in one state valid in another state regardless of that states laws regarding the issuance of a marraige license, meaning if you were legally married as a gay couple in Massachusetts, North Carolina should respect that license even if North Carolina would not issue the same license. And even that is a slim hope.

But this is not an issue but for a small handfull in the upcomming election, and is clearly a distraction

May 10, 2012, 9:29pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

No I haven't I based that and belief on conversations with gay friends over the years. And in a later post I addressed that, That said

Whether by choice or by birth, I don't care how a person chooses to live thier life, and frankly don't care if they are married or not, It was never my issue and I believe that I have been consistant in that regard

May 10, 2012, 9:42pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Mark my online buddy, like I said, I wish we lived in a time where it was possible for the president to go further. I don't believe the states have the right to decide human rights with a vote. I also understand this issue is pure politics but, there is a purpose. I don't think we have a major disagreement on these points.

You don't seem to believe gay people have a right to marry, that their preference is a choice and marriage is a privilege. Am I misstating this, I apologize if I am? It's not my intention to change your mind, you can believe anything you want. I do believe over time people's viewpoints will evolve.

May 10, 2012, 9:53pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Charlie Mallow wrote: "It would be ideal if it was possible for the president to go further. You know its not in this political climate. "

Ah, profiles in courage. Refreshing, isn't it?

May 10, 2012, 9:54pm Permalink
Mark Brudz


As usual many of what we argue is not really far apart, an evolution of thought is of course a reasonable thing to agree on.

That is not what I believe this President is actually doing at this point, as you do agree appararently this is politics, but where we do disagree is the reasoning about that.

As we speak the President is attending a fundraiser at $40K a pop hosted by George Clooney. That room is full of many extremely left leaning individuals many of whom this issue is paramount to. It is no secret that many of them have openly called the President out on his pre-evolved position. Also, many in Hollywood are starting to question his attack on wealth as exemplified by a recent Jon Lovivitz statement.

This is in the news this week and was carefully orchestrated to 1) give a bone to them, and 2) To distract from economic issues that currently are not looking very good for the president for a myriad of reasons. That is all that I am saying.

I am not lathered up by gay rights at all, rather I am lathered up by a facade of evolution rooted soley in political gain or at least the assumption there of.

May 10, 2012, 9:58pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Mark, sure. The president took the smallest step forward to keep his base behind him and all the money that comes with that. There is also a huge separation between the president and his opponent that is being spotlighted. Mitt is against gay marriage all together, Mitt is even against giving gay soldiers the right to die for their country. Being gay is a choice for Mitt. Like I said, a nonstarter.

May 10, 2012, 10:10pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

From my perspective Charlie, the smallest step forward is just smoke and mirrors to evade the primary issue.

Let him gin up his base I quess, after all for every one job created 3 people are dropping totally out of the job market.

Let him gin up his base, after all the last three rather dismal jobs reports have all been made worse when they were revised a week later.

You may be right, no smoke and mirrors, a sincere evolution of thought

May 10, 2012, 10:22pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Those who are solidly on one side or the other of the gay marriage issue are not likely to be swayed, however the most valuable take away from this on the national stage is the character of our President. For those who have bought the Hope and Change, transparency, Forward, post-partisan, post-racial, anything but the issues President, have been given a clear insight into his motivations and character. I hope that character will count when considering wether this is the man who should be leading the citizens of the United States and not just those who fit his narrative.

May 10, 2012, 10:33pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Mark, don't bet against our economy, you'll lose evertime. Mark my words, if you don't like this marriage issue hold tight, more is on the way. Obama knows how to campaign and he understands there is more than one thing that makes you pull that lever. If Mitt is counting on the failure of our economy to win, he's DOA.

May 10, 2012, 10:38pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

I don't know Charlie, we"ll see, I agree that Obama is a great campaigner, after all, the continuous campaign has been the hallmark of his presidency.

By the same token, don't underestimate the opposition yourself

May 10, 2012, 10:45pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Lorie, I have never heard Mitt Romney ever say that he had a single thing against a gay man or woman. Views on DOMA are primarily about preserving the nuclear famiky, not gay bashing in general.

And Barrack Obama lost an election in the 90's being pro gay marraige, then two years later won an election saying he was against gay marraige

I never liked the Flip flop issue on either side, Charlie is right about evolving positions they all do Donkey or Elephant

May 10, 2012, 11:03pm Permalink
Sean McKellar

This is the best thread I've read on the Batavian. I think it's great that the argument here is not homophobic whatsoever. Even the folks who consider homosexuality an abomination have demonstrated a "live and let live" opinion. Awesome. Now for my two cents (for what it's worth).

You are born with your sexuality. It's not a choice.

"Just curious Mark - did you make a conscious decision to be heterosexual (assuming you are)? Did you just wake up one day and decide that you were going to be straight or was it a long and arduous decision process?"

Beth took the words right out of my brain. I am 40 years old and heterosexual. I never made a conscious choice about it. It just is. I have two close family members who are lesbians. They are incredibly intelligent people who showed me that your sexuality is no more a choice than is the color of your eyes. They have never said as much, they taught me through example. I'm extremely lucky to belong to a caring, open minded family that has never made anyone's sexuality an issue. Your eyes are blue, your hair is blond, you're gay. It is what it is. You play the hand nature dealt you.

One of the basic tenants of this country is the separation of church and state. Religion plays no part in our laws. Why should gay people not enjoy the benefits of a civil union? It has no effect on anyone except the parties involved. It's simple. If your church is against it, that's just fine. Don't marry gay people at your altar. But leave it there. Outside of your religion, it's none of your business.

I had high hopes for Obama when he was elected. Man was I disappointed. It's just like that old Who song- meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Him coming out to support gay marriage at this point is a load of crap. Where was this conviction in '08? It's obvious to me that this is a diversion from the economy. It strikes me as funny that this is brought up after the point has been proven as moot. Even the religious right seems to not care too much now.

May 10, 2012, 11:18pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Wow Sean, you zinged them down one by one Cool

Just for the record, I do know a few Gay guys that feel they made a choice, one of them being my best friend who dabbled at it at 39 years old for the first time and decided he liked it.

But that really doesn't matter, my whole point was the smoke and mirrors by the President

May 10, 2012, 11:34pm Permalink

Democrats and Republicans......a race to the bottom of the barrel.....

Come on folks, with the problems this country has, should we really spend sooooooooo much time on this?

May 10, 2012, 11:38pm Permalink
Lorie Longhany

Well you have a hit parade of flip flops with Romney. LGBT issues aside. Here's 14 of his greatest hits courtesy Senator John McCain's campaign four years ago.…

And if you don't like" the flip flop issue" how about the many contradictory stands he takes? Latest example -- he now takes credit for saving the auto industry.

All I can say is bring on the debate season.

May 10, 2012, 11:46pm Permalink
Sean McKellar

Thanks Mark!

I think it's awesome that we can agree to disagree about sexuality being a choice. I've enjoyed reading your comments, because it's obvious that you have an open mind. I don't care about liberal or conservative labels. If your mind is closed, you suck. I suppose my views are considered "liberal", but I am respectful of others, just as you seem to be.

And do you think your friend who made the choice to be gay may have been suppressing urges he had his whole life just to fit in and be normal? And perhaps at 39 he realized that the opinions of anyone except himself just don't matter?

May 10, 2012, 11:52pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Oh How I do love clean debate Lorie.

For every flip flop you can find on Mitt Romney, I can difg up one on Barrack Obama, but then again we can pretty much go tit for tat on that for every politician on the State or National level.

As far as pullng what another Politician quotes as a Flip Flop, we must not forget, national politics has as much to do with Theater, as it does platform.
Remember as Charlie pointed out, positions evolve ;)

For the record, I will come down on an unsavory Republican as I will an unsavory Democrat.

So have it

May 10, 2012, 11:53pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Actually Sean, his wife left him while we were deployed on a MEU in 1986. He got drunk one night and woke up in a guys bed, after some circumspection his life model changed, he struggled with it for a couiple of years after that

May 10, 2012, 11:57pm Permalink
Sean McKellar

And Mark, I think it's great that your friend had enough trust in you and love for you to be open about his sexuality. No matter your opinions, this speaks highly of your character.

May 10, 2012, 11:58pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Thanks, but I am far from perfect, with regard to my friend Mike, I would die for the guy to this day as I know he would me. Kind of a Marine Broitherhood thing

May 11, 2012, 12:00am Permalink
Sean McKellar

Ah Mark, the old case of "in vino veritas".

I didn't realize that you're a Marine. Thanks for your service. I'd like to buy you a beer sometime.

May 11, 2012, 12:03am Permalink
Mark Brudz

LOL thanks but I am pushing on 2 decades since my time now. May take you up on the beer some day though, if you don't mind drinking with an old fart.

May 11, 2012, 12:12am Permalink
Lorie Longhany

And back to marriage equality and states rights. What about that little NOM pledge that Romney signed?

That pledge obligates him to fight for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, to appoint federal judges who don’t see a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and backs the Defense of Marriage Act. This would render NY's marriage equality law null and void. So much for states rights.

May 11, 2012, 12:35am Permalink
Mark Brudz

Pretty much the same as Barrack Obama being for gay marraige in 1998 until he ran against Alan Keyes in 2000.

When you look at the polling in three swings states Ohio 61% against Gay Marraige, Pennsyvania 62% against Gay Marraige and North Carolina, well they already went that way.

There will never be that constitutional amendment largely because of a lack of resolve toward one from both parties in congress

Romney is simply doing the same thing Obama did in 2000, looking at the polls in key districts he needs

May 11, 2012, 12:49am Permalink
Mark Brudz

Don't confuse that with my position please Lorie, there is no candidate that exist as far as I am concerned that I will agree with 100% of the time

May 11, 2012, 12:51am Permalink
Joe Lullo

We live in a society where being fat is something you were born with and have zero control over and being gay is something you choose. Which explains why all the fat children are killing themselves recently... Oh wait..

May 11, 2012, 12:53am Permalink
Lorie Longhany

Mark you said "When you look at the polling in three swings states Ohio 61% against Gay Marraige, Pennsyvania 62% against Gay Marraige and North Carolina, well they already went that way."
Aren't these the swing states that Obama hopes to win? Yup, I think those are the states. So how might this help Obama win those states? Don't get me wrong I want him to win those states and I believe he will, but his change to marriage equality certainly can't be deemed as a political move to win over those states.

Obama has moved his opinion, like much of the country has on this issue -- moving exponentially from 25% in the early 2000's to today's majority of 50+%…

This is a trend that will continue to move to full equality and I am proud that the President is right in step with the rest of the country. Romney, on the other hand has reverted from his former more progressive stand.

From Wikepedia -- Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States is a widely reported topic, with most recent polls showing majority support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Support has increased steadily for more than a decade, with supporters first achieving a majority in 2010.

May 11, 2012, 1:31am Permalink
Mark Brudz

Lorie, the national acceptance of gay marraige nationwide is without question true, no denying it.

The numbers in those swing states are also recent

The Political Theater this week is also undeniable

1) Joe Biden does meet the press on Sunday and seemingly at odds with the Presidents position
2) Arne Duncan comes out on Monday with similar statement contrary to the President
3) Press Secretary says Tuesday Obama's position is evolving
4) Wednesday the President goes on ABC and says he has evolved, but also adds it is up to the states to resolve
5) Thursday the president flies out to fundraiser in hollywood many of whom attending have in the past questioned his position on DOMA and Gay Marraige, also Washington [post coincidentally puts out hit piece on Romney saying he bullied a gay kid in 1965 while in High School. Also Thursday very dissapointing first time unemployement claim numbers hardly even mentioned in press

Meanwhile, last month for every job created 3 have left the workforce, last weeks already bad first time claim numbers revised and oh much worse than originally released,

And what are we discussing? The President's view on Gay Marraige and his statement that it is up to the states to resolve in the end.

Why is that you Democrats can't see the slight of hand? Pretty much I fear, because you don't want to.

Bottom Line.... If President Obama did such a great job with the economy, why is he doing just about everything to shift the narrative away from his record on it?

May 11, 2012, 2:42am Permalink
Daniel Jones

So, what Mark and Jeff are trying to do is distract from the original poll question and focus solely on Obama, when held against the ropes on what they were saying about Obama was wrong, they try to shift again back to their original argument against, but not quite owning, gays. Mark himself said that he thought sexuality was a choice.


May 11, 2012, 2:27am Permalink
Daniel Jones

Wait a minute, so Governor Romney is excused from changing his mind because he was seeking a different office than the one he held? Seriously? You cannot accuse President Obama of crass political opportunism while the other guy engages in even more crass political opportunism. It just shows that Governor Romney is pretty much a man without any sort of core, his shifts have been dramatic at all levels (not just gay marriage, abortion, gun control and not trying to bring back 'Reagan-Bush'), and that his supporters are so desperate to defeat President Obama that they'll try to move the goal posts to any possible mark to make it happen. Ah, hypocrisy, smells just as fresh as morning coffee.

Oh, and as for the polls, the swing vote gap is rapidly closing and President Obama is at or near the 50 percent mark in most of those polls, the swing vote difference against the incumbent normally occurs close to the election, and in the summer of 2004 President Bush amassed a coalition that would stick with him through November. This election is going to be about turnout, and with the falling unemployment rate (near 10 percent a few years ago, down to nearly 8 now), increasing exports, over 20 months of straight job growth for the first time since 2007 and the fact that he saved the auto industry (Michigan and Ohio, anyone?), many of those who voted the last time will be ready to pull the lever again. You have to consider where we were the day he walked into the Oval Office when judging his record on the economy, and believe me, President Obama's campaign will be making that case, not to mention point out with those skewed 'leaving the workforce numbers' how many are just leaving the workforce for reasons besides economic hardship, like, ya know, retiring or becoming injured. Not only that, add into the fact that he's pulled the combat troops out of Iraq, is winding down Afghanistan and set the strategy (no, it would not have happened under a McCain administration because he wanted to focus on Iraq) and ordered the mission to kill bin Laden. Funny how Romney didn't think that getting the guy who killed thousands of people was worth the money. Is that all that Mitt Romney thinks about is money?

Mitt Romney has proven himself to be a man who cannot be trusted with anything, let alone the nuclear trigger or to be the economic manager. This is a guy who made much of his fortune shutting down companies and firing all of the workers for a huge profit, even Newt Gingrich pointed out this sort of horrible business practices with Romney. I consider Newt to be somewhat of a hero for this, his conservative opposition to corporate piracy was pretty bold and principled. I think that Newt's criticism's of Romney for this should and most likely will be used by the Obama campaign to make the case against Romney in the general election.

Let's also remember that Romney has proven himself to be a horrible campaigner, the guy had nearly the entire establishment lined up behind him, loads of cash and name ID and it took him until April to be the presumptive nominee? He still despite that can't pull over 70% in GOP primaries in NC and IN against Ron Paul and two guys who are no longer in the race? He's pretty bloodied from it, and then he's going to walk into the ring with one of the greatest campaigners and orators of all time. Good luck.

May 11, 2012, 2:44am Permalink
Mark Brudz

Not even close Daniel, your were the one also that used the term strawman,

In fact the smoke and mirrors I am upset with is a sign of brilliant campaigning, we're discussing this and his economic policy goes to the sideline,

Ok you win, Obama is a political Genius, meanwhile my clients keep telling me how thier sales are dropping and they may have to lay more people off.

It's time for the next thread and a new way to hear how your political Messaih is saving us from our sins

May 11, 2012, 2:50am Permalink
Mark Brudz

Oh and Daniel, Afganistan?

From October 2001 to December 2008 there were 585 combat deaths in afganistan (9 years), From January 2009 to Monday 1285 combat deaths and counting (3/12 Years) really winding down. Small footprint surgical war in response to 9/11

Iraq, (This one I will Give you we shouldn't have gonme there)But the withdrawel plans were already underway before Obama took office, an dthe plans implimented were actually drawn under the Bush administration, and that my friend is a fact. But I will still give you this one, we shouldn't picked this fight in the foirst place. 1

May 11, 2012, 2:59am Permalink
John Roach

I could care less who or does not approve or not approve of gay rights.

But Obama did not end Iraq, he actively tried to get Iraq to allow us to keep troops there. If he had his way, we would still be their.

Afghanistan is a bigger mess now than ever, with increasing attacks by government troops on ours. It has been reported now that the administration has not fully reported all the attacks. And Obama just signed a deal that keeps us involved for almost another decade.

May 11, 2012, 6:20am Permalink
Jeff Allen

Dan, you have proven that you know how politics works but then you put out "This election is going to be about turnout, and with the falling unemployment rate (near 10 percent a few years ago, down to nearly 8 now), increasing exports, over 20 months of straight job growth for the first time since 2007 and the fact that he saved the auto industry" Let's start with the shell game of unemployment. The job market lost 170,000 jobs last month and yet the unemployment rate went down a tenth of a percent. Successful SSDI claims have exponentially skyrocketed while the job force has shrunk. SSDI recipients are not counted as unemployed. The unemployment numbers are way more than a little skewed. These are real facts, not conspiracy theories. The auto industry did not need saving, GM, Chrylser, and Ford did. Toyota and Honda were doing fine (you know those companies producing the cars with the highest domestic content, therefore the greatest percentage of American workers earning paychecks building them). GM has played it's own shell game only paying off Fed bailout money with internal loans (paying off one credit card with another credit card), shuttered the Volt already and laid off workers since the bailout. Chrysler is now owned by Fiat, another "success". Ford made the tough choices on their own and returned to profitability long before the other two. That is the essence of give a man a fish, teach a man to fish. John and Mark have already adequately countered the Iraq/Afghanistan BS. So to sum up your narrative, you say Obama will win in November because a misled public re-elected a successful liar. Not something for this country to hang it's hat on.

May 11, 2012, 7:14am Permalink
Mark Brudz

To say that Barrack Obama is the greatest campaigner and orator of all Time is a bit of a stretch.

Yes he is up there but have you ever heard of the Lincoln/Douglas debates? And let's not forget the great Communicator as he was then called, Ronald Reagan.

FDR did a fairly good job with his fireside chats, and how about JFK "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!"

Why don't we let history decide who was the greatest orator/debator

May 11, 2012, 10:44am Permalink
Chris Charvella

I don't particularly care why Obama endorsed gay marriage. He is the first U.S. President to say publicly that gay Americans should have the same right to marry as straight ones and that, as Joe Biden would say, is a Big Fuckin' Deal.

The Republican argument here seems to be that the President isn't allowed to say and do things in an election year that appeal to his base. I'm not sure if you guys how realize how stupid that sounds....

The only argument against against gay marriage is a religious one. This is a secular nation no matter how many evangelical lawmakers insist it shouldn't be, and our laws cannot be based on dogma alone.

Obama is a Democrat and he's going to do and say things that appeal to Democrats and moderates (voting booth moderates, not people who claim to be moderate in order to sound reasonable in public.) Republicans don't want to allow this, because their candidate loses immediately on every issue except the economy. Even the issue of the economy is a toss up; Obama is hurt because nobody has any money, and Romney isn't credible because he wants to go back to doing the things that made all the money disappear in the first place.

May 11, 2012, 3:36pm Permalink
Sean McKellar

"The Republican argument here seems to be that the President isn't allowed to say and do things in an election year that appeal to his base. I'm not sure if you guys how realize how stupid that sounds...."

Chris, I enjoy reading your comments. You always cut through the bull droppings in an entertaining and engaging way. Up to now, I've agreed with everything you say, but I have to take issue with the above quote.

It's purely awesome that the President has endorsed gay marriage. It's a tremendous step forward in human equality. I fail to see any difference between racism and homophobia. This is monumental. I am grateful to our President for taking such a moral and correct stand.

He should certainly be allowed to say whatever he sees fit to appeal to his base. This is what politicians do. It's their job, so to speak. They need to be elected to office, and in order to do so they must appeal to voters.

My problem with his endorsement is about the timing. Where the hell has his concern for gay Americans been for the past four years? He just last week had some epiphany about human rights? My bullshit detector is at level ten over this. My common sense says that it's a distraction from the real issues. Normally I wouldn't even pay attention to a politician flip-flopping (they all do it- it's part of the game), but this is way, way over the top.

I see it as an insult to homosexuals. It's as if he's said that the basic human rights of homosexual Americans only count if it helps him get reelected.

May 11, 2012, 9:01pm Permalink
Mary E DelPlato

its about legalities, if a lifelong partner died without the legal binding the surviving partner has nothing unlike hetero sexy marriages where there are survivor bennies etc...

May 12, 2012, 9:55pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

I do not support gay marriage but, if they would like to call it something different and allow the same benefits then by all means do so. Marriage is between a man and a woman! If, GOD meant man to be with man then, why make woman? GOD could of made man with both reproductive organs! Heck, some species have that ability!

May 13, 2012, 9:43pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

I wouldn't have been thrilled with Mitt Romney either, that is why I didn't vote for him but just about anybody would be better than what we are stuck with now. He is pretty much indefensible at this point.

Jul 27, 2013, 7:42pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Why Dan, do you want to invite the possible onslaught of anti-Obama post? He won again two years ago and I accept that, I definitely do not like it, but I accept it. It somewhat seems like you are gloating.

Would Romney have been a better president? That question is at the least hypothetical and more likely moot.

Is Obama a doing a good Job? Well as of last week 49.5% say no, 12% aren't sure, hardly a ringing endorsement. (BTW, Bush's poll numbers were 5 points better at this point in his presidency and he was embroiled full bore in two wars)

I for one am steadfastly opposed to most of his policies, 99% of his actions and frankly believe that he will find his place in history among the worst of presidents.

Like all presidentcies however, history will decide and most likely two decades will pass before history does. Remember, Harry Truman left office with low approval ratings near George Bush, and 30 years later he is not only often quoted, but referred to as an outstanding president. If you ask someone now about George Bush you will most likely hear many criticisms, but 20 years from now, well how his actions affected history will determine that, not anything we could say here right now.

Emotions of the time reflect poll standings, emotions also run rampant during and in the near past election cycles, the effect on history is the true rating of a presidency, and we have a few decades to go before we see that for any of our recent presidents. The effects of the Carter & Reagan Presidencies are just now being placed in historical perspective.

Jul 28, 2013, 12:25am Permalink
Charlie Mallow

You gloat all you want Dan. This thread was from a day and age where people believed they had the power to vote away other people's civil rights. Thank God these words will live on the internet forever.

Jul 28, 2013, 4:07pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

"This thread was from a day and age where people believed they had the power to vote away other people's civil rights." You are so right Charlie and with what we have seen in just the last 18 months, the results of the 2012 election prove that the power is still alive and well. Thank you for that nostalgic reminder.

Jul 29, 2013, 5:24am Permalink

Authentically Local