Today's Poll: Do you support gay marriage?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Well said Jeff, that ultimately was my point
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
Take a gander at former Governor Romney's "Pride Weekend' flyer and then tell me which candidate has done a 180 on issues and rights of the LGBT community. Who could ever trust anything that comes out of Romney's mouth?
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
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.
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
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?
THANK YOU RICHARD
That was my point all along, it is a diversion
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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..
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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