The President of The United States has come out in favor of Marriage Equality.
This is the big one – second only to the killing of Bin Laden in terms of “things Obama will be remembered for.” It’s been widely assumed that he supported equality all along, but was holding back on outright support in order to not anger certain voting-blocs (churchgoing African-Americans/Latinos and Catholic-descended blue-collar Union laborers mainly) known to be reflexively-Democrat voters but socially conservative. Whether this was planned via Biden’s “trial-balloon” admission of support or whether that really was a “gaffe” that forced the President’s hand is for the pundits to decide.
I am a supporter of same-sex marriage and the President overall, so this is pretty elating… but I won’t lie and say I’m not a little bit worried. I was with everyone else in assuming Obama was trying to feign the middle-ground until after the election, and I was always fine with it – politics for grownups are about results, not idealism – because I’d rather have him fake-right, win and give me four more years of progressive judicial nominations (the most important thing ANY president can do long-term) than be “true” and lose, saddling me with 4 to 8 years of backwards-looking right-wing governance. So yeah, I’m happy… but I hope he knows what he’s doing.
If nothing else, this is the clearest signal yet that the Democrats “get” what the GOP has “gotten” for a year now, that with neither party having the kind of record you can really “run” on, this is going to be a base-versus-base election – re: “swing voters” are being written off in favor of “who can fire up turnout among the already-decided base.” This is the gauntlet being thrown and the notion of “changing minds” being back-burnered – it’s Culture War time: Thinkers versus Believers, Red versus Blue, Past versus Future, Backwards versus Forwards, Regression versus Evolution, Reason versus “It’s In The Magic Book.”
I’m excited. I enjoy the relative-clarity of times like these; and it’ll be a rare pleasure to actually vote for a candidate instead of just for his likely-politicies (or “against” the other guy.) I just hope there actually are enough Good Guys to win…
MOVIEBOB CENTRAL 
Just remember, when everyone starts lumping people into groups, not everyone who is Christian or in the South is a backwards thinking hypocrite. I, and most of the people I surround myself with, are fully in support of Gay Rights. It's seems like something that should be an obvious in this day and age, not a topic for discussion. That's all my opinion of course.
Just make sure (and this goes to everyone, no matter what religious views or politics), when you start lumping people into a group and labeling them, you become as terrible a person as many of the people you scorn. Not that there aren't many people who do think that way (that RIDICULOUS way… in my opinion), but that we are not ALL that way.
LikeLike
This can only be a good thing. It gives the LGBT community knowledge that they have an ally in the highest position in the US government and shows that teh President is indeed progressive at heart. Hopefully, the USA will now vote in a way that shows you are all willing to move forward and be able to accomodate equal rights for all.
LikeLike
“Past versus Future, Backwards versus Forwards, Regression versus Evolution”
The only difference between any of those is the measure of entropy.
“Reason versus “It's In The Magic Book.””
What about THE BOOK?
LikeLike
Just FYI, Gary Johnson supported gay marriage rights long before Obama did.
LikeLike
@JUSTINtimforalaugh
Unfortunately, in presidential politics, it doesn't matter what the minority thinks, because the way the electoral college is set up is as a winner-takes-all. Even if some southerners support gay marriage, the majority do not (as demonstrated most recently in North Carolina, where just this week a constitutional amendment was added to ban same sex marriages and civil unions, the first amendment to their constitution regarding marriage since their ban on interracial marriages), which means that ALL of the electoral votes will go to Romney.
There were plenty of (evidence based) generalizations in that last paragraph, but remember that this only applies to presidential politics. If an individual introduces themselves to me as having been born and raised in North Carolina, I am not going to assume that particular individual is opposed to gay marriage, because generalizations and statistics are meaningless when your sample size is n=1.
LikeLike
JUSTINtimeforalaugh,
As a North Carolinian who voted against amendment one yesterday, I am right there with you. I am saddened by the attitudes of many in our state, but glad to have seen so many outraged by the results. And I am THRILLED at Obama choice to make a stand on this issue.
Bob, I hear you on being concerned about what this does for him electorally, but I think he needed to run this risk to galvanize his supporters so that we have not only someone to vote against, but someone we feel good about voting for.
LikeLike
Finally. It's good to know the President has finally come out swinging for us. I'm still more likely to move to Brazil with my boyfriend someday, but hopefully this will happen for others.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
LikeLike
@ Zeno
THE BOOK? You mean The Necronomicon?
LikeLike
@Bolongo
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/849043/The-Book
LikeLike
It's a sad state of affairs for democracy that campaigns are fought on the strategy in getting people to vote.
Requiring people to vote is not IMO as clear cut as it sounds. However I'd be a lot happier over all if it was a legal requirement to vote, as long as 'none of the above' was an option.
If for nothing else than I would be very interested to see how it effects the turn out (people who still don't vote vs. people who vote for a candidate vs. people who vote none of the above)
Paul KT
LikeLike
@Paul Kingtiger
“However I'd be a lot happier over all if it was a legal requirement to vote, as long as 'none of the above' was an option.”
That still implies that there is some option other than the above that is appropriate, which doesn't do justice by those who think there isn't.
LikeLike
I am glad he said this. The cynical part of me thinks he did this just to win the gay vote, but either way I approve of the message.
Personally, I think gays should have the right to marriage, and all the tax incentives that come with it.
LikeLike
Of all the things Obama is, for good or ill, he is the best 'politician' President since Clinton. Therefore, I trust he knows what he's doing. I have to assume that people who are THAT insane about Gay Marriage that it would cause them not to vote for him are probably not gonna vote for him anyway.
Gotta say, if he loses I will be…unhappy, to say the least.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
LikeLike
I thought these comments were being moderated now. So why is James still being allowed to post the same stalker-like garbage he has been posting for at least a month now.
LikeLike
Moderated doesn't mean “moderated constantly.”
That said, James? You'll please note that I left your FIRST post alone. That's what you get. If you keep posting with nothing new to add, it all gets deleted. That's how it works from now on. No more threadjacking, no more repetition. Get new material, or stop it.
LikeLike
Okay, you want something new to add, I've got something new – while Obama said he supports same sex marriage, he says he believes it should be handled by the states. How does that gel with your philosophy that individual states aren't “intelligent” enough to handle the matter. This is just a way for Obama to rake in LGBT votes while doing nothing.
LikeLike
@MovieBob
I completely understand Bob that you can't moderate constantly. I was just surprised at how fast James was posting again. Thanks though for deleting his comments.
Keep up the good fight Bob! (Probably should register a name here soon).
LikeLike
Hey Movieboob, what did you think of the bigoted Barack Obama of two days ago in comparison to the Barack Obama of today, who now holds the same position as Dick Cheney and the late Andrew Breitbart?
LikeLike
@anonymous
Dick Cheney supports Gay marriage now.
LikeLike
I have no problem with gay rights, but I think marriage should be illegal.
LikeLike
Disregard that last comment, I misread Anon's comment. Sorry.
LikeLike
too bad the good guys also lose today since north carolina passed a law banning gay marriages and civil unions…
LikeLike
Ever think maybe everyone is being god damn unbelievably retarded over this issue? Seriously…
On the one side you have idiots who kick and scream if someone else gets something, and on the other similar idiots who kick and scream if they don't get it right now… (and a number if everyone doesn't give them it regardless of if being a member of them is optional).
Meanwhile, the best answer that would work for EVERYONE simply needs time.
1) You change the legal term from marriage to… something else. This has to be done across the board and for everyone. The ONLY exception I would make is to grandfather people already married, and that's because the paperwork involved there would be a royal pain in the ass.
2) With this done, NOW you give it to everyone with the term for legal marriage and the term for religious marriage being different terms.
This would both give the rights of gay marriage that should be AND prevent the idiocy of “well they have the same name so they are the same thing” thereby also protecting the rights of a church to follow it's own rules.
Everybody wins.
Oh and Bob… way to show your true colors…. you want your politicians to fake who they are so long as you get your way? And those who dissagree aren't in “adult” politics? And if they want different then you or even think different politically they are backwards thinking?
Way to be a typical condescending liberal douche who would rather insult those you disagree with over actually having a debate of any kind.
LikeLike
“Reason vs. It's in The Magic Book”,
That's unbelievably condescending.
LikeLike
@Megabyte
most of your comment was impossible to read, but I'm going to try and respond to it regardless. Calling both sides of an issue “idiots” doesn't make you sound smarter, it's just annoying; this is especially true when the position you suggest afterwards isn't expressed very clearly.
There's no way around the fact that the Religious Right in the US believe that people who follow the societal norms of their religion/ culture deserve more rights than people with a different view. Which is both a breach in equality and a separation of church and state issue.
Also, you don't seem to have much of a grasp on how people have been trying to handle this issue. first of all, many in the Religious Right- this includes Mitt Romney's most recent comments- view the advocation for Gay Rights as a “War on marriage”. They believe that having policies that are supportive to a lifestyle that scares them is “social engineering” (Rick S's responce to Obama). They are against, again Romney specifically has said this, Gay people even having the exact same legal rights and having it be called something else. This mostly is a result of their irrational fear that gay people cannot raise children.
I also think a plan sort of similar to what I think you were describing would be ideal, but there's no way around the political impracticality of it. It's not that nobody has thought of it. I'm okay with the government helping out people who are raising kids, whether that's two people or just one, but in general Marriage is at best a fanciful old tradition and at worst an archaic social constriction we've sort of outgrown. It really shouldn't be part of our government. But having it at least be a benefit anybody can access regardless of orientation, is pretty good.
also, saying Gay people are “idiots who kick and scream if they don't get [what they want] now” is an incredibly short-sighted and offensive thing to say. The only reason this issue is even something people debate now is because of the people who have been extremely vocal about inequality. They HAVE to kick and scream, and they should be admired for their tenacity.
LikeLike
I hate people who oppose same-sex marriage. What they do together is their own damn business. Besides, making it so that they CAN'T be together kind of goes AGAINST the freedoms this country is known for.
My mom mentioned something about Health insurance or something like that, and THAT'S the root of this whole problem, which I GUESS would be a nice justification for homophobia, but still…
Yeah, go Obama, he's still got my vote.
LikeLike
Bob, hate to bust your bubble, but there's three VERY good reasons why Obama did this today:
1: Richard Lugar, Obama's favorite Republican–got his ass handed to him by the Tea party candidate in a primay
2: The Union backed candidate in the Wisconson recall election lost in spite of MILLIONS of union and out of state funds going to them.
3: A fucking PRISON INMATE got 40% of the Democrat vote in the Democrat primaries in West Viriginia.
All of this spells out one very important thing: Obama and his party are not NEARLY as popular as they keep telling themselves in the Washington echo chamber.
Bob, i know you live in a blue state, but you have GOT to pull your head out of your ass. Right now, people do NOT like this president and every day that goes by he or his administration says or does something that only further enrages people.
I don't really have an issue with Gay marriage, but lets not pretend this is something it isn't. This is political expediency and its not just to bury the news of these election results, but also to pander money out of gay rights groups. Obama wants their cash, nothing more.
LikeLike
“3: A fucking PRISON INMATE got 40% of the Democrat vote in the Democrat primaries in West Viriginia.”
What do you have against Solzhenitsyn?
LikeLike
1) How was it hard to read? I think you did quite well if you got the points I was making.
2) I wasn't trying to sound smarter. Im convinced most of the loud mouths on both sides have disengaged their brains to engage their vocal cords. In short, they are all being retarded. And since they pretty much own this debate… well… *shrugs*
3) I think you missed how much Im after the Religious Right on this as well… Please see point #2.
4) I honestly dont care how people have been trying to handle this. It has failed and for fairly obvious reasons to me… namely that no one is coming to the table to actually talk and get past the issue. Everyone's just screaming at each other. Again, see point #2.
5) Thank you for listening to what Im saying. Basically, I want equal rights for all, but I see serious idiocy around the corner if it isn't handled in this way or something similar. It isn't too hard for me to imagine someone deciding since religious and legal marriage are both called marriage, that they are the same thing and suing a church who doesn't practice gay marriage over it. Further more it takes even less for me to imagine a bunch of people hearing that one moron talk and agreeing… how long before that suit or legal action would force it? This is what I mean when I call people retarded.
And the only point I have for government being involved is it's an easy way to keep family units organized together. Other then that, Im inclined to agree with you about them butting out.
and 6) Good. That was supposed to be offensive… actually to everyone. Because really, we need level heads to come together and hit a solution… not the spoiled brats I pretty much see on both sides. But I guess that's politics today…. so…
LikeLike
Actually, i don't have anything against him. Just saying, this unknown prision inmate stole 40% of Obama's thunder. And that was in a Democratic primary. That's Obama's own people voting against him. That's a joke!
LikeLike
“3: A fucking PRISON INMATE got 40% of the Democrat vote in the Democrat primaries in West Viriginia.”
Wait, there's a Democratic vote in West Virginia? *Is surprised*
LikeLike
@Megabyte:
Not all of your points support your argument.
1. Richard Lugar was a moderate Republican… which usually suggests a moderate electorate. Though I don't have the specifics on this particular seat, it's quite likely that him losing his primary will result in the Democrats taking the seat.
2. First off, you're being misleading. You're talking about the primary, not the recall election. So it was a contested primary. Big whoop. I'm also distinctly skeptical about your money claims – all the articles I can find tell me that Scott Walker's raised more than all the Democratic primary candidates put together.
3. Obama does not care about West Virginia. He lost by more than ten points there last time. He wasn't going to win there this year, either. In a state with two in ten voters reporting that they won't vote for a black man, why would he expect to?
The general contention that gay rights groups can put together enough money and influence to outweigh the conservative spin machine is also quite humorous. If he wanted to pander, he would have kept being vague until after the election. The gay rights activists were gonna vote for him anyways.
LikeLike
Crap, meant to say @Wendy. My mistake.
LikeLike
@Megabyte
“on the other similar idiots who kick and scream if they don't get it right now… (and a number if everyone doesn't give them it regardless of if being a member of them is optional).“
Considering that the topic at hand is gay marriage, I certainly hope you aren't implying that being gay is optional. Your sentence was difficult to read and unnatural-sounding, so that's my interpretation.
Megabyte:
“Meanwhile, the best answer that would work for EVERYONE simply needs time.“
People should demand their rights as loudly as they damn well please. That's why they're called rights. I'm getting a little tired of well-meaning apologists saying that civil rights advocates look antagonistic because they didn't ask for their rights nicely enough.
“Excuse me religious conservatives, we would really like to have our basic human rights now. When it's not too much trouble of course. No, no, take your time, there's no rush. We understand you need time to convince your entire base. Just get back to us in the next 20 years or so with your official statement”
Fuck that nonsense. People should be entitled to their rights. right. fucking. now. Not waiting until all of the opposition feels good about it.
I consider myself a pretty abnormal guy. I'm think of myself as socially progressive, but I cannot for the life of me understand why men and women would enjoy shoving objects up their shitboxes. However, I still think people have the right to do what they please without waiting around for me to reconcile my own cognitive dissonance about their behavior. That's my problem, not theirs.
LikeLike
I will never stop being fascinated with US politics.
It perplexes me that it took till 2012 for a president to come out in favour of this. It perplexes me even more that much of the liberal blogosphere seems even more dedicated to attacking obama for this than fox.
And honestly I did not see this coming. i was under the impression most marriage equality advocates understood that the strategy was a quiet attrition. Seems politically risky to me for him to make a definitive statement in this regard. You know this cost him a few million votes.
LikeLike
US politics always distracts from the point and contradicts itself, it's almost embarrassing to be associated with it.
LikeLike
@Dave from Canada
“It perplexes me even more that much of the liberal blogosphere seems even more dedicated to attacking obama for this than fox.“
“i sic was under the impression most marriage equality advocates understood that the strategy was a quiet attrition. Seems politically risky to me for him to make a definitive statement in this regard.
What? You're perplexed that some of the liberal base came to the same conclusion that you did about Obama taking unnecessary risks?
LikeLike
@biomechanical923:
1) Your interpretation is wrong… and it sounds more to me like you are reading what you want to in it. You can CHOOSE to be a member of a church… that is optional. Think about it.
2) People should demand their rights, but taking time to do it right beats out rushing into unforeseen consequences every damn time… although I laid out my theory on what will happen if we just barreled forward without a plan, so I guess foreseen is actually the word here.
That does NOT mean wait forever. Yes, get change going here. But move with a plan, not stomping like a child.
3) This is a talk about marriage, not sexual behaviors. While one normally goes with the other, they are really not the same issue at all… so I don't even understand why you bring it up.
LikeLike
I think this is awesome that President Obama has come out and fully supported Gay marriage. He's always supported gay rights and I'm glad that he has gone the entire way now. I am not sure how much of the base he will win back since so much of it is disillusioned but I think he might win back a good amount. I agree with Bob on this one like I usually do on political issues it is time to start evolving as a country and start fully supporting Civil rights issues. It is also nice to see a Democratic president come out and just fully state his opinion instead of just dodging the question.
LikeLike
@Megabyte
“This is a talk about marriage, not sexual behaviors. While one normally goes with the other, they are really not the same issue at all… so I don't even understand why you bring it up.“
I posted that information for two reasons.
First, it is my un-professional opinion that a significant portion of conservative moderates are opposed to homosexuality for more than just religious reasons. While many conservatives may be opposed to homosexuality because “God says no”, I believe that conservative moderates may oppose homosexuality in some capacity because, for lack of a better explanation, “because buttsex is gross and I don't want to advocate tax incentives for it”. I'll be the first person to admit that I have no physical evidence of this belief, but I think it's one of those shameful little biases that a lot of people have that they don't talk about.
Second, I posted an example of my own cognitive dissonance over people ramming things in their shitters to prove that it's possible for people to compartmentalize their feelings, and accept that people have the right to participate in a lifestyle that I many not choose including all the associated rights and recognitions (tax breaks, health insurance, etc). I may have picked a very sideways, stream-of-consciousness way of explaining that, but there you go.
Like I said, I'm strange.
LikeLike
One more thing:
@Megabyte
“Your interpretation is wrong… and it sounds more to me like you are reading what you want to in it. You can CHOOSE to be a member of a church… that is optional. Think about it.“
That doesn't make any sense. The original sentence I was replying to was:
“idiots who kick and scream if they don't get it right now… (and a number if everyone doesn't give them it regardless of if being a member of them is optional)“
What rights are religious groups trying to fight for right now? The right to prevent other people from getting rights?
LikeLike
“Way to be a typical condescending liberal douche who would rather insult those you disagree with over actually having a debate of any kind.”
As far as this specific issue goes, there's no reasonable debate to be had. One group is in favor of taking away the civil rights of a minority, and the other side is in support of those rights. No debate necessary.
LikeLike
Im not. Im saying that it's no one's right to assume a group you can choose if you want to be a member of will adapt to you. This includes churches and religions. Basically, that was aimed at the people in the movement who believe equal rights means forcing any given church to marry gay people regardless of their own beliefs. (And I have actually met and argued with people who believe this.)
LikeLike
Is anyone here actually arguing that LGBT marriage equality is a bad thing? Or is everyone just throwing a shitfit about timing and hypocrisy and voting and tactics and herp derp election year durrrrr?
Support of LGBT marriage equality is an absolute good, no matter the political ramifications.
LikeLike
Not to take anything away from the rational position Obama has (finally) taken… but I think I'll reserve my respect for people who don't bear the responsibility for the deaths of children.
LikeLike
Obama says marriage should be decided on the state level. Bob has said in the past that it shouldn't. So why does he give Obama a free pass for supporting a view that he disagrees with?
LikeLike
@ James
Do you even read the entire blog post before you comment? Bob was saying Obama should have kept his mouth shut and appeared as more of a centrist for the moderates. How is that a free pass??
LikeLike
As a Canadian and an outside observer of the United States, what baffles me about this news is not the fact that Obama came out and admitted it, it's the fact that it's so controversial in this day and age. Welcome in the 21st century, USA!
But, really, I know that a lot of you “Americans” are much more open-minded than others…
LikeLike