Democrats wonder: How should we manage Obama’s gay-marriage charade at the convention?

posted at 6:12 pm on March 15, 2012 by Allahpundit

He’s willing to make a “gutsy call” to send Navy SEALs into Pakistan after the guy who knocked down the World Trade Center, but ask him to end the transparent farce in which he pretends to be opposed to gay marriage so as not to alienate socially conservative Democrats? Before an election? C’mon.

Even Zeus isn’t that gutsy.

Interviews with more than a dozen party officials and activists reveal that despite widespread and growing support for marriage equality among Americans, the issue is still viewed as politically sensitive in the top ranks of the Democratic Party. While many high-profile figures have publicly advocated for including strong language in the platform, the Obama campaign and the allied Democratic National Committee are searching for ways to split the difference: showing support for equality but stopping short of a full-fledged endorsement…

“The DNC folks — their political shop — have been calling [gay-rights activists] and really pressuring them,” said Paul Yandura, a political and fundraising strategist at the firm Scott+Yandura who led gay and lesbian outreach on both Bill Clinton and Al Gore’s presidential campaigns. “Look, I’m not going to claim that they’re pressuring them not to be for it, but this ‘let’s wait’ thing is always what happens in politics — let’s wait so they can find a way to slow this down and maybe get a good reason not to do it.”…

This year’s [platform], according to sources familiar with early conversations, will likely emphasize the accomplishments made under the president, such as a refusal to defend DOMA, the decision to grant same-sex couples visitation rights in hospitals, and the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. As for the specific issue of marriage equality, no formal meetings have taken place. Yet several variations of new language are already being envisioned, ranging from text that would underscore the need for inclusive employment, non-discrimination legislation and safer schools, to language that would emphasize the benefits of relationships regardless of sexuality, to a platform that championed marriage equality outside the religious realm…

“I find it impossible to believe that this presidential election will be completed without Barack Obama coming out strongly for marriage equality and Mitt Romney coming out strongly against it,” said Hilary Rosen, a longtime party strategist who is deeply involved in LGBT causes. “I think it would be hard for him to not say it. I think the whole thing is awkward for them, because I think everybody in the leadership of that campaign is totally comfortable with the idea of marriage equality.”

Yeah, I found it impossible to believe that O’s entire first term would pass without a serious effort to reform entitlements given the fiscal quicksand we’re in, but here we are. What would it take for him to endorse legalizing gay marriage forthrightly before the election? Well, for starters, he’d need to be worried about the youth vote. This is an issue that could get them to perk up if it looks like turnout is sagging; the question is whether it’ll cost him more votes in older demographics, where turnout is almost always higher, than it’ll earn him in younger ones. If he was emphatically federalist about his position — he supports SSM but insists on a state’s right to decide for itself — that would cushion the blow to social conservatives, but I don’t know how he could take that stance given his opposition to Prop 8 in California.

Another way to twist his arm would be if wealthy liberals threatened to cut off donations unless he changed his mind. They’d have real leverage if they tried: Your must-read of the day is Karl Rove’s piece at the Journal explaining in vivid detail why The One’s cash haul so far isn’t as impressive as it looks. They’ve got a sprawling organization to feed and a lot less grassroots green to feed it with, so if liberals started cutting him off en masse unless he ends the charade on gay marriage, he might have no choice. Of course, there’s almost no chance that’ll happen given the realities of partisan politics. The White House counterargument will be that Romney, however moderate he is deep down, will be beholden to the conservative base once elected and opposing gay marriage is an easy way to throw them a bone. Forced to choose between a guy who agrees with them but is momentarily pretending not to for electoral advantage and a guy who agrees with whatever he needs to in order to get elected, SSM supporters might as well go with door number one. There’s at least a chance that he’ll side with them on principle.

Exit question: Is O lying low on this issue because he thinks the Supreme Court will bail him out sooner rather than later?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Put statuettes of Barak and Sandra Fluke both dressed in tuxedos atop a wedding cake. That should do it.

meci on March 15, 2012 at 6:18 PM

They’ve got a sprawling organization to feed and a lot less grassroots green to feed it with

Once they start tapping the international donors they’ll be just fine…

BadgerHawk on March 15, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Just convene a task force. It helped get him through a) the superbowl and b)now the NCAA tourney. All he has to do is point to the task force, say that they’re studying it, that they’re “gettin’ back to him”, then smile, point his finger, and look hip.

Task Force

ted c on March 15, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Maybe they can get him to tongue kiss Barney Frank at the convention.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 15, 2012 at 6:19 PM

He is awaiting for Larry Sinclair’s approval…

hillsoftx on March 15, 2012 at 6:20 PM

If he doesn`t come down on their side, is he waging a War on Gays? :-P

ThePrez on March 15, 2012 at 6:20 PM

When votes decide standards, there are no standards!

OldEnglish on March 15, 2012 at 6:20 PM

When Mitt Romney says he opposes same-sex marriage, people believe him.

When Obama says he opposes same-sex marriage they know he is lying.

kjl291 on March 15, 2012 at 6:20 PM

So let me get this right: the bet is that the Mighty “O” will come out for gay marriage even though he has been against it all this time and will do so for political purposes and votes?

Silly Rabbits!

What makes you think this man of principle, pragmatism and a champion of the people would do something so farcefully political?

Opposite Day on March 15, 2012 at 6:20 PM

a longtime party strategist who is deeply involved in LGBT causes

I’m not touchin’ that one….not without some G-Town supplies if you know whut i mean.

ted c on March 15, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Exit question: Is O lying low on this issue because he thinks the Supreme Court will bail him out sooner rather than later?

Which Supreme Court? The link refers to the California Supreme Court which is more of a mockery of law than an enforcer of it.

The real Supreme Court will no doubt be divided along ideological lines. Highly doubtful they rule in an Anti-American vein though.

HotAirian on March 15, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Stay away from the social issues, Barack! All the Rombots tell me that it’s toxic to campaign on social issues!

gryphon202 on March 15, 2012 at 6:21 PM

“I find it impossible to believe that this presidential election will be completed without Barack Obama coming out strongly for marriage equality and Mitt Romney coming out strongly against it,” said Hilary Rosen,

There’s that liberal “fairness and equality” b-sh!t again. Notice how Mz. Rosen phrases her statement—you’s either for it or agin’ it. Here’s an idea, we’ll call a marriage between a man and a women a HOLY MATRIMONY,

Rovin on March 15, 2012 at 6:21 PM

By kissing him all over, inside and outside, you stinkers.

Schadenfreude on March 15, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Forced to choose between a guy who agrees with them but is momentarily pretending not to for electoral advantage and a guy who agrees with whatever he needs to in order to get elected

Isn’t this the same guy? It’s so hard to tell in politics anymore!

IrishEyes on March 15, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Is O lying low on this issue because he thinks the Supreme Court will bail him out sooner rather than later?

If O gets to put a couple more O-bots on the SCOTUS, gay marriage won’t just be legal, it’ll be government mandated for everybody (except Muslims, of course; we wouldn’t want to offend them).

AZCoyote on March 15, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Just like abortion this will be a forever unsettled wedge issue that the courts will decide. Remove inclusive spousal benefits and pensions from public employees and the issue goes away.

DanMan on March 15, 2012 at 6:24 PM

There’s that liberal “fairness and equality” b-sh!t again. Notice how Mz. Rosen phrases her statement—you’s either for it or agin’ it. Here’s an idea, we’ll call a marriage between a man and a women a HOLY MATRIMONY, and all other unions a marriage. Equal enough?

Rovin on March 15, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Rovin on March 15, 2012 at 6:25 PM

What am I missing on this…I’ve been under the impression that The One is playing teh gheys and liberal voters into believing that he supports gay marriage et al. That’s what I hear from teh ghey Left.

Anyone here who knows me will tell you I am all for gay marriage, but I just don’t see that as being a major platform issue on Obama’s re-election.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Have Obama stand up front of the stadium like Reverend Moon, preside over 10,000 weddings?

portlandon on March 15, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Here’s an idea, we’ll call a marriage between a man and a women a HOLY MATRIMONY, and all other unions a marriage. Equal enough?

Rovin on March 15, 2012 at 6:21 PM

“Separate but equal”

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Yeah. If I were the dems, that particular “charade” would be well down on the list of charades they and Obama have to manage in the upcoming election.

RedCrow on March 15, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Obama’s “stance” on Homosexual Marriage is “evolving”.

Evolution, just like “Change” takes time!

OxyCon on March 15, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Anyone here who knows me will tell you I am all for gay marriage, but I just don’t see that as being a major platform issue on Obama’s re-election.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Haven’t you been payin’ attention JB? Nothing Obama does is “a platform or a stance”. In Obama’s world, every thing is a wedge issue to further divide the nation.

Rovin on March 15, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Rovin on March 15, 2012 at 6:25 PM

I disagree. That would allow a wedge to be inserted in the wall. Putting a religious conditioner onto marriage, denies equality with secular marriage.

The important term is marriage – as you correctly say, between a man and a woman.

OldEnglish on March 15, 2012 at 6:31 PM

He’ll have a selected panel to study it and make recommendations…totally ignore their findings and have a super dooper panel selected…then…

KOOLAID2 on March 15, 2012 at 6:31 PM

I thought the expectation was that Obama was using the Gay wedge issues for strategic purposes. That he would “evolve” his positions as an ace in the hole.

Democrats never acknowledged that Obama’s position was nearly identical to many Republicans anyway, and considered this an example of the whole farce where Obama supposedly takes centrist positions.

Knowing he might have Santorum coming down the pike makes it all that much more sweeter.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 15, 2012 at 6:31 PM

“Separate but equal”

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Gays and straight couples : equal

Polygamists and polyamorists: separate.

thebrokenrattle on March 15, 2012 at 6:32 PM

“Separate but equal”

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Separate but equal enough, since they’re not at all the same thing.

Kensington on March 15, 2012 at 6:33 PM

“Separate but equal”

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 6:28 PM

I blame Nature. How dare she care more about perpetuating the species than being politically correct!

AZCoyote on March 15, 2012 at 6:35 PM

I keep being told that the whole country is just keening for same-sex marriage and that therefore the GOP needs to enlist en masse in the Yay Gay Corps, yet President Downgrade hasn’t gotten the memo.

Hmmm.

Kensington on March 15, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Evolution, just like “Change” takes time!

OxyCon on March 15, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Yeah, at least 4.5 years.

RedCrow on March 15, 2012 at 6:37 PM

“Separate but equal”

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Every Gay Man has the right to Marry. They choose not to marry.

Every Lesbian Woman has the right to Marry. They choose not to marry.

What is the problem here???

portlandon on March 15, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Well, for starters, he’d need to be worried about the youth vote. This is an issue that could get them to perk up if it looks like turnout is sagging; the question is whether it’ll cost him more votes in older demographics, where turnout is almost always higher

My, what a pickle!

Exit question: Is O lying low on this issue because he thinks the Supreme Court will bail him out sooner rather than later?

It really doesn’t matter – until they speak up – and even after – he’ll vote….

“Present”

Tim_CA on March 15, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Have Obama appear onstage to the Campaign Theme music “I’m Coming Out“.

profitsbeard on March 15, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Exit question: Is O lying low on this issue because he thinks the Supreme Court will bail him out sooner rather than later?

There is a 0% chance gay marriage is not the law of the land by the end of Obama’s 2nd term. Either because he is able to appoint new libs to SCOTUS or because of extra constituational measures he takes himself.

Kataklysmic on March 15, 2012 at 6:40 PM

While I have no doubt that bigotry will lose and marriage equality will win (and quite possibly sooner than many on our side of the aisle think), I don’t see Obama coming out in favor before the election. He will be asked about it, sure, but he will utter something about evolving on the issue and that will be that. The Leftists won’t press him, because they want the narrative to be elite Romney and his eeeeevil rich friends vs Savior Obama and the common man. They can get the base excited with garbage about contraception because that wont turn away independents, but no way they focus on something more controversial.

McDuck on March 15, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Is O lying low on this issue because he thinks the Supreme Court will bail him out sooner rather than later?

He’s lying low because he is trying to figure out how much half of his stash of sheeeet is ,
you know the stuff he will have to give to the Mooch ,
when he marries Reggie Kneepads.
Once he figures that out,
he’ll know what to think

burrata on March 15, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Dems being transparent liars about the Ineligible Imbecile from Indonesia? You don’t say.

We’ve had nothing but non-stop lies (and dumb, transparent lies of the most offensive kind – offensive to the intellect) for the whole of Barky’s 3 year Occupation of the White House. The lies told to shove illegal legislation through were even worse. The lies to make the American military a subsidiary unit called up and commanded by France and then the subsequent illegal release of the SPR to try and cover that up were easily more intellectually offensive than this pretend gay-marriage farce.

I’m sick of people acting surprised by the same boot we’ve had at our throats for three years, already. Barky neds to be impeached. Everyone knows this. Those who refuse to acknowledge it just keep coming up with “I can’t believe he’s/they’re doing ….”, as if the lawbreaking and America-hate were just coming out of nowhere. Enough, already.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 15, 2012 at 6:43 PM

This horse hockey isn’t even on most people’s radar, except for the zealots on either side of the issue.

We’ve got bigger and more important fish to fry.

hillbillyjim on March 15, 2012 at 6:43 PM

I keep being told that the whole country is just keening for same-sex marriage and that therefore the GOP needs to enlist en masse in the Yay Gay Corps, yet President Downgrade hasn’t gotten the memo.

Hmmm.

Kensington on March 15, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Hmmm indeed.

Puts paid the ridiculous progressive meme of “gay marriage inevitability”, doesn’t it?

Rebar on March 15, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Task Force

ted c on March 15, 2012 at 6:19 PM

I agree. That’s exactly what he should do.

cjw79 on March 15, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Another way to twist his arm would be if wealthy liberals threatened to cut off donations unless he changed his mind.

What percentage of wealthy liberals actually give a s**t about gay marriage, though?

MadisonConservative on March 15, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Democrats wonder: How should we manage Obama’s gay-marriage charade at the convention?

They may want to cancel that scheduled performance by The Village People.

Kataklysmic on March 15, 2012 at 6:47 PM

If he was emphatically federalist about his position — he supports SSM but insists on a state’s right to decide for itself — that would cushion the blow to social conservatives, but I don’t know how he could take that stance given his opposition to Prop 8 in California.

He just can. He’s The One He’s Been Waiting For.

hillbillyjim on March 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM

If O gets to put a couple more O-bots on the SCOTUS, gay marriage won’t just be legal, it’ll be government mandated for everybody (except Muslims, of course; we wouldn’t want to offend them).

AZCoyote on March 15, 2012 at 6:24 PM

You think it will be mandatory even for you?

cjw79 on March 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM

The “War on Gays!”…?

/

Seven Percent Solution on March 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Every Gay Man has the right to Marry. They choose not to marry.

Every Lesbian Woman has the right to Marry. They choose not to marry.

What is the problem here???

portlandon on March 15, 2012 at 6:38 PM

P-Don, you know I love ya…but that statement right there is the biggest load of crud…I expect better from you :/

As for the rest…I didn’t know marriage was all about mandatory procreation. Now I know. These days we see half of all marriages end in divorce, pre-nups, cheating, whatever. Nice way to defend the sanctity of marriage. And in the early days of marriage, your bride could be stoned to death if you found out she wasn’t virgin. How about that for sanctity…

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 6:49 PM

As for the rest…I didn’t know marriage was all about mandatory procreation. Now I know. These days we see half of all marriages end in divorce, pre-nups, cheating, whatever. Nice way to defend the sanctity of marriage. And in the early days of marriage, your bride could be stoned to death if you found out she wasn’t virgin. How about that for sanctity…

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Propaganda straight out of the progressive playbook.

Rebar on March 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM

These days we see half of all marriages end in divorce, pre-nups, cheating, whatever. Nice way to defend the sanctity of marriage. And in the early days of marriage, your bride could be stoned to death if you found out she wasn’t virgin. How about that for sanctity…

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 6:49 PM

hey JetBoy….mind telling all of these straight folks how wonderdful most gay “relationships” are. like, how “open” they are….come on….let them know…

GhoulAid on March 15, 2012 at 6:54 PM

If I were the dems, that particular “charade” would be well down on the list of charades

RedCrow on March 15, 2012 at 6:29 PM

No kidding.

Go RBNY on March 15, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Yeah, at least 4.5 years.

RedCrow on March 15, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Right on!

OxyCon on March 15, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Propaganda straight out of the progressive playbook.

Rebar on March 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Yup. Marriage is already on the ropes, so let’s redefine it for the killing blow.

Kensington on March 15, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Moses was willing to rescue gay animal couples. Yet those animals still aren’t here today. And that is what happened to the unicorn. Odd, but nobody consults me for bible teachings.

I like that “marriage equality” spin. Gays can already marry but just not to the same sex. So that makes them a ‘victim’. Which should make them happy as this is considered a high status for a liberal. I still think the more butch person in the gay couple hates marriage and just claims to support it to appease the effeminate one.

MechanicalBill on March 15, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Wow, I meant Noah.

dd, but nobody consults me for bible teachings.

Starting to make sense to me now.

MechanicalBill on March 15, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Gay Marriage can get on the IDGAS pile along with Reproductive Rights, Mormonism, Evangelicalism, and all the other smokescreen issues.

How about that unemployment rate?
How about $4.25 gas (and climbing fast)?
How about the debt crisis?
How about the housing crisis?
How about the price of electricity?
How about the fact that the DOJ seems to be suing about 20 states at any one time?
How about Fast and Furious?

The GOP need to shape the debate. Let Baracky run on his record. The GOP should deem all these little side issues utterly irrelevant because they are desperate gasps to avoid what is a record of failure, corruption, and incompetence. A heady mix we need to kick and kick now.

CorporatePiggy on March 15, 2012 at 7:01 PM

“Separate but equal”

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Separate from what?

When demands for separate entrances or separate seating or separate classrooms, etc come up, let me know and I’ll be on your side.

Mimzey on March 15, 2012 at 7:03 PM

JetBoy, your patience continues to amaze me. When someone says something ridiculous about us gays, I just chuckle and ignore it, but you discuss it with them which is admirable.

McDuck on March 15, 2012 at 7:06 PM

hey JetBoy….mind telling all of these straight folks how wonderdful most gay “relationships” are. like, how “open” they are….come on….let them know…

GhoulAid on March 15, 2012 at 6:54 PM

I’m sure gay men think about sex more than straight dudes…But either way, why get married if one or both are simply going fool around on the side? It makes no sense. There are many gay couples right now who are in long-lasting and loving relationships. Some even raised kids, who turned out normal in every way.

Not to mention there are a lot of straight married dudes who get caught cheating. Heck, they have a reality TV show about it

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 7:06 PM

These days we see half of all marriages end in divorce, pre-nups, cheating, whatever. Nice way to defend the sanctity of marriage. And in the early days of marriage, your bride could be stoned to death if you found out she wasn’t virgin. How about that for sanctity…

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Actually the “half of all marriages” bit is a statistical fallacy.
The rest?..thank the progressives and their demands for “equality” and “fairness”.

Pointing to stories from antiquity is also a strawman.

Mimzey on March 15, 2012 at 7:10 PM

JetBoy, your patience continues to amaze me. When someone says something ridiculous about us gays, I just chuckle and ignore it, but you discuss it with them which is admirable.

McDuck on March 15, 2012 at 7:06 PM

:) I’ve been a commenter here at HotAir since nearly the beginning, when Michelle Malkin was still doing “Vent” videos. This topic of gay rights/marriage hasn’t changed one bit since then. The same old stale points about the decline of Western Civ, DADT would destroy the military, gays can marry any woman they want just like straight men…the list goes on.

I do have a limit tho on my patience. But doing this online this way allows me to get up and take a breath and a break, and come back to it and continue.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 7:11 PM

GOProud represents gay conservatives and their allies. GOProud is committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy. oh, and tee hee hee….we’d like gay marriage in all 50 states.

GhoulAid on March 15, 2012 at 7:12 PM

I shudder to think of the idiocy of the debate if Obama ever came out for gay marriage. Conservatives would probably be even worse than the liberals.

Dash on March 15, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Why make an issue of it at all? The lefties can continue to ignore PBHO’s dithering and simply continue on with the “Ain’t he dreamy” thing they’ve had since 2008.

Bishop on March 15, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Pointing to stories from antiquity is also a strawman.

Mimzey on March 15, 2012 at 7:10 PM

So how far back can you go and still have your marriage considered sanctified and showing the real institution?

What exactly should I thank the progressives for? For the most part they go way too far, arguing more for “special” rights than equality. Liberal progressive tick me off as much as they do you, maybe more since they claim to speak for all gays…which ain’t true.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Every Gay Man has the right to Marry. They choose not to marry.

Every Lesbian Woman has the right to Marry. They choose not to marry.

What is the problem here???

portlandon on March 15, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Exactly!

chewmeister on March 15, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Actually the “half of all marriages” bit is a statistical fallacy.

Not that I’m aware of.

However, “all marriages” includes second, third, fourth and fifth marriages. Only about a quarter of all *first* marriages end in divorce. So 3 out of 4 couples get married and stay married. Not perfect, but not anywhere near as bad as the “half of all marriage” statistic seems at first glance.

Missy on March 15, 2012 at 7:20 PM

While I have no doubt that bigotry will lose and marriage equality will win (and quite possibly sooner than many on our side of the aisle think), I don’t see Obama coming out in favor before the election. He will be asked about it, sure, but he will utter something about evolving on the issue and that will be that. The Leftists won’t press him, because they want the narrative to be elite Romney and his eeeeevil rich friends vs Savior Obama and the common man. They can get the base excited with garbage about contraception because that wont turn away independents, but no way they focus on something more controversial.

McDuck on March 15, 2012 at 6:40 PM

So who exactly is being discriminated because of race?

chewmeister on March 15, 2012 at 7:20 PM

CorporatePiggy on March 15, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Sad thing is, I don’t see any of the current candidates pounding that point home.

chewmeister on March 15, 2012 at 7:24 PM

So how far back can you go and still have your marriage considered sanctified and showing the real institution?

As far as you want or anytime up to the present.
My point was, selective stories from bygone eras is not even representative of the times being referenced.

What exactly should I thank the progressives for? For the most part they go way too far, arguing more for “special” rights than equality. Liberal progressive tick me off as much as they do you, maybe more since they claim to speak for all gays…which ain’t true.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 7:14 PM

You don’t have to thank them for anything. In fact, they are responsible for the things you pointed out..pre nups etc.

That said, What about your separate but equal claim and my response?

Separate from what?

Mimzey on March 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Watch it Allah! He is The Chosen One! He is the Obamassiah! THERE IS NO ISSUE HE CANNOT STRADDLE!

GarandFan on March 15, 2012 at 7:28 PM

However, “all marriages” includes second, third, fourth and fifth marriages. Only about a quarter of all *first* marriages end in divorce. So 3 out of 4 couples get married and stay married. Not perfect, but not anywhere near as bad as the “half of all marriage” statistic seems at first glance.

Missy on March 15, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Shhh…

You’ll ruin JetBoy’s progressive narrative. No fair exposing the Moby.

Rebar on March 15, 2012 at 7:28 PM

And they tell us to stop with the “social issues”.

Why? They won’t. Ever.

Why should we preemptively cede the battlefield? We do that, they win by default.

JeffWeimer on March 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM

I’m not against gay marriage for any religious reasons. I don’t believe you can use a religious argument in arguing for what a government can or can’t do. I don’t have issues with people being gay. Logically, gay marriage is just stupid. It’s not sought for logic, it’s sought for legitimacy. As if government’s blessing will fill some hole in your life. That is not the governments job. The only reason they are involved in marriage now is to promote the creation of more tax payers. So the claim that ‘gay marriage’ would end the institution of marriage is not some hollow homophobic rant as gay marriage proponents would like to dismiss it as. It’s very simple. If that’s all marriage is about, the state sanctioning of couples, then why have government involved at all? Gay marriage advocates (not all gays support it) don’t want to acknowledge that very possible question because it means their opponents were right.

MechanicalBill on March 15, 2012 at 7:32 PM

As for the rest…I didn’t know marriage was all about mandatory procreation. Now I know.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Yup….about the fact that, when men and women have sex, it almost always results in procreation.

Marriage is a response to that biological fact. It exists so that there is a legal framework to protect and provide for the inevitable end result of males and females having sex. To encourage people to take responsibility for the end product of sex that they have, we subsidize marriage legally and financially. We accept an additional cost to society that is spread across all of us because having children raised by both of their parents has been found to be the most effective and efficient means of producing a positive outcome for society.

You don’t have that problem, JetBoy. You can have all the sex you want and never once have to worry about producing a child. Thus, for society to accept the cost of subsidizing you is pointless; it is a net loss, since you will never produce anything that recoups the cost of your subsidy to society.

That’s argument number one.

These days we see half of all marriages end in divorce, pre-nups, cheating, whatever. Nice way to defend the sanctity of marriage.

So your argument is to let gays marry because marriage is already screwed up?

I think I would get an overwhelming wave of support from the posters here if I said that society ought to condemn cheating, tighten up divorce laws, and remind people that with the benefits of marriage come responsibilities — and that you’d better live up to them.

Show me where leaders of the gay and lesbian community have done the same. In fact, when you look at gay and lesbian leaders like Dan Savage, they mock monogamy and fidelity and call them hurtful and destructive.

That’s argument number two. The miniscule attempt at an argument for gay-sex marriage is to “civilize” gay men — which neatly explodes when you look at both how gay leaders trash and mock monogamy and fidelity, and how gays like yourself are always bringing up examples of how marriage doesn’t “civilize” heterosexuals.

In other words, gays and lesbians are even worse than Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian; not only do they not believe in monogamy and fidelity, they scream that society is homophobic for expecting them to follow either.

And in the early days of marriage, your bride could be stoned to death if you found out she wasn’t virgin. How about that for sanctity…

That was because in that day and age, if that occurred, your wife had lied to both you and God in the marital vows.

But of course, you are opposed to any type of penalties for people who violate their marriage vows.

That’s reason number three. You are openly hostile toward the idea that people in any way have to take responsibility for their behavior in exchange for having the benefits of marriage.

So let’s sum up:

1) Gays and lesbians have no need of the primary purpose of marriage

2) Gays and lesbians have no respect for the primary values of marriage

3) Gays and lesbians openly oppose any attempt by society to hold them responsible for the primary expectations of marriage

In short, JetBoy, the only thing allowing gays like you to marry would do is to cheapen marriage and the value of it beyond recognition — in exchange for you doing absolutely nothing to earn it.

No sale.

northdallasthirty on March 15, 2012 at 7:36 PM

P-Don, you know I love ya…but that statement right there is the biggest load of crud…I expect better from you :/

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Actually, its not.

There are “straight” people who, for whatever reason..age..naturally asexual..zero libido etc, who may have feelings of love and respect for another person and want to pass property to them if they should die. (something that can be done thru existing contract law.)..the transfer of benefits, etc.

They can not get married.
Where is the discrimination?

Mimzey on March 15, 2012 at 7:37 PM

As far as you want or anytime up to the present.
My point was, selective stories from bygone eras is not even representative of the times being referenced.

OK, I’m confused…You can go back in time as far as you want in definitions of marriage, just not “bygone eras”. What does that mean, especially when you say I can go any time in the past I want?

Oh, and as for “separate but equal”, pretty much an extension of my gay marriage views…the “We can’t let teh gheys steal our word and definition of ‘marriage’…call it something else”. Separate but equal.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 7:38 PM

However, “all marriages” includes second, third, fourth and fifth marriages. Only about a quarter of all *first* marriages end in divorce. So 3 out of 4 couples get married and stay married. Not perfect, but not anywhere near as bad as the “half of all marriage” statistic seems at first glance.

Missy on March 15, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Thereby proving the position I have maintained for some time: haven’t gays been persecuted enough throughout history? Why would we want to inflict marriage on them?

ghostwalker1 on March 15, 2012 at 7:39 PM

There are “straight” people who, for whatever reason..age..naturally asexual..zero libido etc, who may have feelings of love and respect for another person and want to pass property to them if they should die. (something that can be done thru existing contract law.)..the transfer of benefits, etc.

They can not get married.
Where is the discrimination?

Mimzey on March 15, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Are you really saying gay love and respect is the same as love and respect for a good friend?

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Separate but equal.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 7:38 PM

i am gay. my relationship with my boyfriend is seperate from a heterosexual realtionship because i ____ my boyfriend up the ___!

THANK YOU, AND GOODNIGHT!

GhoulAid on March 15, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Are you really saying gay love and respect is the same as love and respect for a good friend?

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 7:39 PM

And here we thought before it wasn’t about sex — at least that’s what the gay-sex marriage supporters are saying.

But since you’re insisting on making it about sexual and romantic love, let’s lay out the points:

1) You argue that marriage is about sexual and romantic love and attraction

2) You are arguing that gays and lesbians must be granted marriage because of “equality” — and that to deny them marriage to their chosen partners is unconstitutional

3) Therefore, to deny ANYONE marriage to their chosen partners is unconstitutional.

4) Pedophiles choose children, bestialists choose animals, incest practitioners choose blood relatives, and pluralists choose multiple partners; therefore, they must be granted the “right” to marry all of these, and any laws preventing them from doing so are unconstitutional

Which is exactly the position of gay-sex marriage supporters.

northdallasthirty on March 15, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Not that I’m aware of.

However, “all marriages” includes second, third, fourth and fifth marriages. Only about a quarter of all *first* marriages end in divorce. So 3 out of 4 couples get married and stay married. Not perfect, but not anywhere near as bad as the “half of all marriage” statistic seems at first glance.

Missy on March 15, 2012 at 7:20 PM

I agree. That was, in essence, my point. When people who try to point to the weakness of marriage in general, make the claim of “half of..blah..blah.” knowing full well that it is meant to convey the idea of “first marriages”.

Unless there is some data base that cross references the names of people (original..married..changed etc), the statistic are most likely crap. Two people in one marriage get divorced, and a study is done without this data base and one marriage can equal two divorces. Serial “marryers” paint an inaccurate picture of the stability of marriage imo.

Mimzey on March 15, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Does anyone know Jeremiah Wright’s stance on SSM?

Whichever way he leans, that will be Barry’s. Because if Wright is for it, Barry has no reason to oppose since he’s always crouched his personal position in a religious context. If Wright is against, Barry has to remain oppose or Jeremiah will unleash from the pulpit then Barry’s facing a Prop 8 situation on a national scale.

If Wright makes a public statement in support in the next few months, we all know what’s coming.

budfox on March 15, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Soetoro can’t defend 3 years of ‘Hope & Change’ so it doesn’t matter. By St. Patrick’s Day 2012 Fauxtoro will be gone.

BHO Jonestown on March 15, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Exactly how long is Obama’s to-do list.
You know, the one where he’s putting things off until he’s safely reelected.

-support gay marriage
-prove that he doesn’t really have Israel’s back and never did
-find a way to get gas prices like Europes
-mandate that we drive electric cars
-a war on free speech and religion
-gun control
-pardon Tony Rezko
-have a WH party with all of the radicals he threw under the bus
-forget about JOBS and put more Americans on Gov’t gravy train
-let terrorist in GITMO go free
-quit pretending he cares about the military and their families

I pray Independents are wise enough to stop this destructive president from a second term.

bailey24 on March 15, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Separate but equal.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 7:38 PM

No, just separate. Marriage, as a term, has a specific meaning. Find your own term.

OldEnglish on March 15, 2012 at 7:49 PM

He has called DOMA unconstitutional and supported repealing the ban on gays in the military. If anyone thinks he is really against gay marriage they are living on another planet.

Dawnsblood on March 15, 2012 at 7:50 PM

i am gay. my relationship with my boyfriend is seperate from a heterosexual realtionship because i ____ my boyfriend up the ___!

THANK YOU, AND GOODNIGHT!

GhoulAid on March 15, 2012 at 7:44 PM

I did get a chuckle out of that.

But I never realized that hetero married couples only have missionary position sex, and only for procreation.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 7:53 PM

DoucheBear hardest hit.

Lanceman on March 15, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Actually the “half of all marriages” bit is a statistical fallacy.

Not that I’m aware of.

However, “all marriages” includes second, third, fourth and fifth marriages. Only about a quarter of all *first* marriages end in divorce. So 3 out of 4 couples get married and stay married. Not perfect, but not anywhere near as bad as the “half of all marriage” statistic seems at first glance.

Missy on March 15, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Several years ago, a stat came out that showed 80/20 for religious -presided marriages not divorcing and 20/80 for state-presided marriages. So of the 100% that do divorce, 80% were State-City-Muni licenses.

Civil Unions for all, straight or gay, in the public square. Marriage of sacrament back to the church. If a religious body believes in decreeing Same-Sex couples married, so be it. But we all know the real proggy end-goal is to wrest the title of marriage from religious institutions as a way to weaken the church in society.

budfox on March 15, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Why does he need to? Most gays are sadly (and stupidly) far left anyway, it’s not like they’re suddenly gonna vote for a Republican just because Obama’s too scared to admit what everyone already knows. He’s got the gay vote, well most of it anyway, so why not pretend to be against it so the three socially conservative democrats that would actually turn against him if he supported it don’t get driven away?

Cyhort on March 15, 2012 at 7:57 PM

But I never realized that hetero married couples only have missionary position sex, and only for procreation.

The more rabid anti SSM religious types seem to think so, lol.

Cyhort on March 15, 2012 at 7:58 PM

northdallasthirty on March 15, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Please…I just ate, and I’m sent to an ACLU page :P

And as usual, a worn out statement against gay marriage. Pick a strawman or two…Basically “If we let gays marry, then we ahve to let pedophiles marry kids, and the polyamerous as many wives or husbands they want, and let a person marry a farm animal.”

Any of those are totally different. Just like present hetero marriage, it consists of two people freely binding together with love and mutual respect. The only difference is it’s same-sex. That’s it. Nothing else.

I dare you to find a link that shows other nations that allow gay marriage, and have been battling requests from pedophiles and multiple wives because of it.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Any of those are totally different. Just like present hetero marriage, it consists of two people freely binding together with love and mutual respect. The only difference is it’s same-sex. That’s it. Nothing else.

You can have this independent of the state. I don’t mind pro-gay marriage position, but let’s all be honest: gay marriage is not conservative and it is certainly not small government. It is about government bennies, and having government sanction your relationship.

melle1228 on March 15, 2012 at 8:06 PM

I keep being told that the whole country is just keening for same-sex marriage and that therefore the GOP needs to enlist en masse in the Yay Gay Corps, yet President Downgrade hasn’t gotten the memo.

Hmmm.

Kensington on March 15, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Yeah, the “whole country” wants it yet it has never passed when put to a vote of the people.

Bitter Clinger on March 15, 2012 at 8:08 PM

I dare you to find a link that shows other nations that allow gay marriage, and have been battling requests from pedophiles and multiple wives because of it.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Now, God knows I’ve always liked you, Jetboy, but, I can’t think of a single country that has endorsed gay marriage for a long enough period of time.
In 1975, if anyone were to mention gay marriage, well, nobody mentioned it because it was a ludicrous thought. But, here we are today.
You’ve always used your brain before. Why not use it now. You are acting like a child who, despite never having chocolate and sees another kid with it, suddenly feels deprived.
I’m not married. I live with a broad. She has all the access to my life that a wife would. Plus, I pay taxes at a lower personal rate.

Lanceman on March 15, 2012 at 8:11 PM

OK, I’m confused…You can go back in time as far as you want in definitions of marriage, just not “bygone eras”. What does that mean, especially when you say I can go any time in the past I want?

My point was, that it doesn’t matter what time-frame you’re referencing, selective claims of particular behavioral events are not representative of the validity or value of what is being reacted to by those actions.

Oh, and as for “separate but equal”, pretty much an extension of my gay marriage views…the “We can’t let teh gheys steal our word and definition of ‘marriage’…call it something else”. Separate but equal.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 7:38 PM

You’re misrepresenting “separate but equal” imo. “separate but equal” had very real effects that is not paralleled by gay marriage.

Mimzey on March 15, 2012 at 8:14 PM

I dare you to find a link that shows other nations that allow gay marriage, and have been battling requests from pedophiles and multiple wives because of it.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Way too easy.

northdallasthirty on March 15, 2012 at 8:26 PM

It is about government bennies, and having government sanction your relationship.

melle1228 on March 15, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Now, God knows I’ve always liked you, Jetboy, but, I can’t think of a single country that has endorsed gay marriage for a long enough period of time.
In 1975, if anyone were to mention gay marriage, well, nobody mentioned it because it was a ludicrous thought. But, here we are today.
You’ve always used your brain before. Why not use it now. You are acting like a child who, despite never having chocolate and sees another kid with it, suddenly feels deprived.
I’m not married. I live with a broad. She has all the access to my life that a wife would. Plus, I pay taxes at a lower personal rate.

Lanceman on March 15, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Yep. The government would see the legal binding of gay marriage, and let gay couples who marry receive the same benefits the state affords to straight married couples. Oh, the horror!

How much time does any nation that legalized gay marriage have before you can reach a conclusion? Like I said, there is no precedent for the issue, and any objections to gay marriage are simply opinion, not fact.

Not to mention, you ever read about the Stonewall riots? In those same 70′s years, it was illegal for gays to congregate in one place, like a bar…which Stonewall was. Illegal to even simply hang out with other gays. You could go to jail. So it’s not like gays have had it good in recent years, and the Stonewall riots sparked gays to finally stand up for who they are, and demand the same constitutional rights as heteros, and not be labelled a criminal, or fired from a job, or denied housing…just for being gay. In some countries even today (Iran) gay is punishable by death.

JetBoy on March 15, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2