Biden: “I’m absolutely comfortable” with gay marriage

posted at 12:38 pm on May 7, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

While Team Obama eagerly engages in various campaigns of misdirection to get people talking about anything other than the president’s terrible economic performance, it looks like last week’s flap concerning the resignation of the Romney camp’s openly gay staffer presented Team Obama an opportunity to work on their own gay-marriage messaging. Sending out their top scout to determine the lay of the land, Vice President Biden elucidated his own views on gay marriage on Sunday’s Meet the Press:

“Look, I am vice president of the United States of America. The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that.”

It would be way too controversial of an election-year flip-flop for President Obama himself to directly endorse gay marriage, so the White House is instead crafting a careful image of a reserved-yet-receptive president with “evolving” views who surrounds himself with sympathetic high-ranking personnel. Obama’s campaign is always quick to tout the repeal of DADT as a signature achievement, and Biden also pointed to some of his boss’s executive orders in support of gay rights, but Biden’s office insisted that the vice president’s words were not an endorsement in favor of gay marriage:

The seeming endorsement of gay marriage by the vice president quickly made news across the Twittersphere. Chuck Todd, reporter and political analyst for NBC News, tweeted that Biden had gone further than Obama on gay marriage. A spokesperson for Biden contacted Todd to clarify that Biden was not speaking for Obama. But, a top Obama campaign official seemed to suggest, via Twitter, that Obama held the same view.

“What VP said – that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights – is precisely POTUS’s position,” David Axelrod responded to Todd via Twitter.

A spokesperson in Biden’s office sent an email to reporters saying that Biden’s position on gay marriage had not changed, but, like Obama, his position is “evolving.”

“The vice president was saying what the president has said previously – that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to rollback those rights. That’s why we stopped defending the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges and support legislation to repeal it. Beyond that, the Vice President was expressing that he too is evolving on the issue, after meeting so many committed couples and families in this country,” the spokesperson wrote.

Gay-rights advocates lauded Biden’s outspokenness and encouraged President Obama to say as much, too — but, like many hot-button issues that excite separate groups within his base, actual hard-hitting decisions (or even just real-talk) will likely have to wait until 2013, if at all.


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 3 4

RINO in Name Only on May 7, 2012 at 1:08 PM

To clear up the Obama/gay/dog thing:

1. He is gay.
2. He ate dog.
3. Never claimed that he abused dogs in your accused ways.

Otherwise don’t know what you’re ranting about.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Oh boy…a teh ghey themed thread on a Monday :/

This one is actually well-mannered, civil, and even humorous. Anything coming out of Biden’s foot-filled mouth should be taken with a rather large grain of salt…and as a teh ghey I don’t see any real importance to his statements on the gay marriage issue…his “Number(The)One” is running for re-election and needs to pander to anyone and everyone he can for support.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 1:16 PM

According to all the polls, North Carolina will be adapting a constitutional amendment tomorrow which bans gay marriage. When put to a vote it always loses.

tommyboy on May 7, 2012 at 1:17 PM

I am the walrus

This points out the problem when you market yourself to target “communities.” You can’t come out pro-gay without offending the the black community. You can’t come out as pro-Amnesty without offending the middle class….. and so on.

Happy Nomad on May 7, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I never mixed dogs with gays that I know of. Don’t know what you’re ranting about.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2012 at 1:12 PM

I was referring to the “Man-on-dog” quote that Santorum is somewhat well-known for, and which therefore often comes up in these debates. I didn’t mean to put words into your mouth.

Anyway, while I don’t particularly like his comparison, I wasn’t trying to make such a big deal about it – I was just trying to work in an Obama dog reference.

RINO in Name Only on May 7, 2012 at 1:19 PM

What’s scary is not that Biden endorses gay marriage but that he’s so enthusiastic about it.

Paul-Cincy on May 7, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Sean Hayes was hand-picked for the role of his life portraying Jerry Lewis, and this show is what everyone is going to remember (and probably typecast) him for. Tragic.

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 1:08 PM

You are being generous with the Jerry Lewis comparison. Sean Hayes was hand-picked to be the gay Stepin Fetchit. It’s a tribute to Hayes’s talent that he transcended that grotesque stereotype and reached into Lewis territory, but I could never bring myself to watch more than a couple minutes of that terrible show.

BTW, I could never stand Lewis as a kid, but I’m watching his movies now on DVD and think he is really terrific. Of course, The Nutty Professor is a masterpiece, but Cinderfella, The Patsy, The Ladies Man, and a few others are sidesplittingly funny. And Lewis deserved an Oscar for his “straight” performance in The King of Comedy.

Hey laaaady!

Mr. Arkadin on May 7, 2012 at 1:22 PM

C’mon – anyone who believes Obama isn’t pro-gay marriage is kidding themselves. He doesn’t want to lose any social conservative independents so he’s hedging his bets until after November. I guarantee he’ll be fully “evolved” in a second term.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 1:22 PM

What happens on November 7th? President Obama becomes a gay-marriage advocate and full bore Communist. They’re not connected, except that they would hurt him the day before.

RBMN on May 7, 2012 at 1:23 PM

What’s scary is not that Biden endorses gay marriage but that he’s so enthusiastic about it.

Paul-Cincy on May 7, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I know, right? It’s terrifying that someone could be in support of two people committing their lives to each other. That monster. He should go back to being excited about raining bombs on civilians in a “shock and awe” attack like he’s supposed to!!

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 1:24 PM

C’mon – anyone who believes Obama isn’t pro-gay marriage is kidding themselves. He doesn’t want to lose any social conservative independents so he’s hedging his bets until after November. I guarantee he’ll be fully “evolved” in a second term.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 1:22 PM

I would just like to say I find it refreshing when a liberal admits supporting dishonesty. It makes our job easier.

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 1:24 PM

RINO in Name Only on May 7, 2012 at 1:19 PM

I wasn’t even familiar with what Santie said.

All of it is a distraction. Obama can’t focus on his dismal record and all this is changing subjects. It means nothing compared to the ills of the world. Rome is in full swing. The muzzies are readying the guillotines and the lambs are ready to walk unchained toward them. It’s so tragic that it’s schadenfreudig to watch. So much idiocy must and will be punished.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I guarantee he’ll be fully “evolved” in a second term.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 1:22 PM

He was born that way.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2012 at 1:25 PM

What’s scary is not that Biden endorses gay marriage but that he’s so enthusiastic about it.

no kidding Paul-Cincy, it was a bit like that Joe Sandusky interview where you knew it was getting creepy

DanMan on May 7, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I would just like to say I find it refreshing when a liberal admits supporting dishonesty. It makes our job easier.

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 1:24 PM

We all know that what’s he doing – thus the pass he gets. I’d rather know there’s a chance for equality than go with someone who promises no chance. Then again, Romney is the former governor of MA and was quite happy to go along with gay marriage there, so I honestly think we’re good either way.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 1:26 PM

C’mon – anyone who believes Obama isn’t pro-gay marriage is kidding themselves.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 1:22 PM

This.

It shows the lie that homosexual marriage is a popular issue. Who can doubt, that if supporting it would net 0bama even one extra vote, he would have come out for it by now?

It also shows supposed conservatives who are trying to browbeat the GOP into supporting this loser of an issue, are misguided at best, Mobys at worst.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 1:26 PM

I have noticed that Biden’s voice has gotten a lot squeakier lately.

NoDonkey on May 7, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights

But they are not the exact same rights. Homosexuals and heterosexuals already have the exact same marriage rights: to marry someone of the opposite sex. Men marrying men and women marrying women requires creating new and different rights – and imposing gay morality on straights by fiat, something so-called liberals and libertarians claim to be against.

Knott Buyinit on May 7, 2012 at 1:29 PM

RINO in Name Only on May 7, 2012 at 1:19 PM

I wasn’t even familiar with what Santie said.

Dumb joke + obscure reference + poor delivery = comment fail.

All of it is a distraction. Obama can’t focus on his dismal record and all this is changing subjects.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Agree 100%

RINO in Name Only on May 7, 2012 at 1:29 PM

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 1:26 PM

We know. You guys love dishonest tactics.

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 1:30 PM

C’mon – anyone who believes Obama isn’t pro-gay marriage is kidding themselves.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Same with:

- socialism
- illegal immigration and amnesty
- redistribution of wealth
- nationalization of fracking
- more muzzie brotherhood – he did more to effect Osama’s dreams, in less time than anyone could have imagined
- Russia policy
- China sellout
- communist SC justices
- etc.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2012 at 1:31 PM

We know. You guys love dishonest tactics.

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Hey, I’m not an idealist – I’m a realist. Anything it takes to win…that’s all that matters. You can’t do anything if you have no power. 50+1%. Win at all costs. Now, that’s honest.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 1:35 PM

This.

It shows the lie that homosexual marriage is a popular issue. Who can doubt, that if supporting it would net 0bama even one extra vote, he would have come out for it by now?

It also shows supposed conservatives who are trying to browbeat the GOP into supporting this loser of an issue, are misguided at best, Mobys at worst.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 1:26 PM

I don’t know why I bother, but…

If gay marriage is, as you say, not a popular issue, why are people like you so worked up about it? Many of your mindset on the issue are always saying that gays make up maybe one or two percent of the population (which is far off btw), yet you usually have your panties in a knot whenever the issue is brought up.

For such a non-popular issue coming from such a small percentage of Americans, the gay marriage issue sure does seem to get yer dander up.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 1:36 PM

We all know that what’s he doing – thus the pass he gets. I’d rather know there’s a chance for equality than go with someone who promises no chance.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 1:26 PM

The ends justify the means. We get it. Shouting others down. Lying. Smearing. Personal attacks. Typical leftist/Alinsky tactics. The problem with “ends justify the means” is that you sell out your values to get the result you want. If you embrace that, you’re a sell-out.

Paul-Cincy on May 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Men marrying men and women marrying women requires creating new and different rights – and imposing gay morality on straights by fiat, something so-called liberals and libertarians claim to be against.

Knott Buyinit on May 7, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Not sure how their legal rights impose a morality on others. Churches continue to teach a more restrictive personal morality regarding a variety of legal behaviors. You are free to not drink alcohol or gamble. You’ll continue to be free to not gay marry regardless of how many additional states change their marriage laws.

dedalus on May 7, 2012 at 1:38 PM

For such a non-popular issue coming from such a small percentage of Americans, the gay marriage issue sure does seem to get yer dander up.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Exactly. If they didn’t care, they wouldn’t get so worked up. Yet, several states have gay marriage and nearly all have gay rights protections and the list keeps growing. Not bad for people so insignificant, eh?

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Hey, I’m not an idealist – I’m a realist. Anything it takes to win…that’s all that matters. You can’t do anything if you have no power. 50+1%. Win at all costs. Now, that’s honest.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 1:35 PM

You wouldn’t know honesty if it bit you on the a$$. Your name reeks of dishonesty.

Bitter Clinger on May 7, 2012 at 1:38 PM

How can Biden, as a Catholic, support an anti-Biblical stance like “men marrying men and women marrying women”?

Shouldn’t he be excommunicated?

profitsbeard on May 7, 2012 at 1:39 PM

One thing is crystal clear . . . Biden is a blithering idiot.

rplat on May 7, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Hey, I’m not an idealist – I’m a realist. Anything it takes to win…that’s all that matters. You can’t do anything if you have no power. 50+1%. Win at all costs. Now, that’s honest.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Thank you.

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Wait!….What???!!!…I’m confused,…I thought Marriage was an old worn out traditional and conservative BS ceremony brought to us by over-bearing and close-minded religious, hypocritical men just to keep women enslaved and under the control??? …..now they just have to have it???

W.KY-hillbilly on May 7, 2012 at 1:41 PM

There is no such thing as gay rights. It is not in the constitution.

reddevil on May 7, 2012 at 12:45 PM

The concept is retarded to begin with because it assumes a gay person does not have the same rights as everyone else. What rights are gays denied that straights have?

Exactly my point. Marriage is not a right.

reddevil on May 7, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Exactly. If they didn’t care, they wouldn’t get so worked up.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Gay marriage is the battle line in the culture wars. It will completely normalize gay relationships. It goes to what we teach small children about homosexual acts. You believe they’re fine, others believe they’re a sin. That’s why people get “so worked up” about it. We’re talking about the character of the entire culture being changed.

Paul-Cincy on May 7, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Why are they talking about Gay marriage again?? Did I miss something?

Has the Flukey contraception issue played out ?

Is the War on wimmens over ??

WAKE ME UP when they get to the RACE CARD.

FlaMurph on May 7, 2012 at 12:57 PM

lmao… They will talk about anything as long as it deflects any attention from obummers pathetic record in office. fail fail fail..

Hey Obama , your 1/2 black, I think, tell us all why over 90% of murders committed against blacks are committed by other blacks, and why this is not one of your leading issues in your efforts to help the black community. Oh yeah and while your at it can you PLEASE tell me why Brother’s Jackson and Sharpton NEVER talk about this?

I’ll be waiting….. When you get through shopping will moochell for her next $2500.00 sweater drop us a line here…
I know you feel our pain…

RockyJ. on May 7, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Not sure how their legal rights impose a morality on others. Churches continue to teach a more restrictive personal morality regarding a variety of legal behaviors. You are free to not drink alcohol or gamble. You’ll continue to be free to not gay marry regardless of how many additional states change their marriage laws.

dedalus on May 7, 2012 at 1:38 PM

… until the point where someone sues a church for refusing to marry them, claiming discrimination based on orientation.

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM

For such a non-popular issue coming from such a small percentage of Americans, the gay marriage issue sure does seem to get yer dander up.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Because the progressive homosexual agenda belongs to the progressive democrat party, and many folks take issue with Mobys trying to browbeat conservatives and the GOP into supporting, something that even the democrat party is dancing around.

More: a lot of folks aren’t very happy when judges and politicians thwart the will of the people, and impose homosexual marriage on states where the people have flat out voted against it.

Homsexual marriage is a progresive agenda item, and belongs to the democrat party – let them take the lead, and the heat, for it.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 1:46 PM

To a lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist extremist, a person is NOT a person. A person is a color, a gender, a sexual orientation, an income level, a senior, a student, an ethnic group, a religion, a political type, etc. The lunatic-left treats each of these characteristics independently from the others so the d-cRAT socialists can play their DIVIDE-AND-PANDER game by pandering to each characteristic separately. This disgusting process helps destroy the unifying fabric of society, it causes friction and dissent among all of the people and it fosters a disruptive and unhealthy competition between people in each characteristic area that is shamelessly exploited by the lunatic-left d-cRAT socialists to benefit only themselves.

TeaPartyNation on May 7, 2012 at 1:48 PM

One thing is crystal clear . . . Biden is a blithering idiot.

rplat on May 7, 2012 at 1:39 PM

No doubt. So is his son Beau, attorney general for the state of Delaware. A chip off the old block.

UltimateBob on May 7, 2012 at 1:49 PM

… until the point where someone sues a church for refusing to marry them, claiming discrimination based on orientation.

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Then they’ll lose as women seeking RCC ordination lose, as they should.

dedalus on May 7, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I’ll be waiting….. When you get through shopping will moochell for her next $2500.00 sweater drop us a line here…
I know you feel our pain…

RockyJ. on May 7, 2012 at 1:44 PM

add on another $50.00 for a boob belt to go with that sweater.

GhoulAid on May 7, 2012 at 1:50 PM

“I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that.”

The wisdom of millenia, the manifest teaching of nature and science and the moral teachings of the church he professes to be a member of fade into irrelevance in the face of the Vice President’s penetrating intellect.

It would be worrisome if Mr. Biden were for sale and his comments were done for the rank political motive of garnering gay campaign contributions, but, nah. I reject that analysis and take him at his word that he cannot distinguish a man from a woman.

Mason on May 7, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Not sure how their legal rights impose a morality on others. Churches continue to teach a more restrictive personal morality regarding a variety of legal behaviors. You are free to not drink alcohol or gamble. You’ll continue to be free to not gay marry regardless of how many additional states change their marriage laws.

dedalus on May 7, 2012 at 1:38 PM

… until the point where someone sues a church for refusing to marry them, claiming discrimination based on orientation.

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM

I’m pretty certain that that lawsuit would hit the brick wall known as the First Amendment.

TMOverbeck on May 7, 2012 at 1:58 PM

What rational person would be opposed to gay or same-sex marriage?

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Exactly. If they didn’t care, they wouldn’t get so worked up. Yet, several states have gay marriage and nearly all have gay rights protections and the list keeps growing. Not bad for people so insignificant, eh?

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Tru dat.

And not to forget how the “gay agenda” is to overthrow Christianity and destroy Western Civilization as we know it. I never knew I had such superpowers. Gonna have to get myself a mask and tastefully matching silk cape.

Because the progressive homosexual agenda belongs to the progressive democrat party, and many folks take issue with Mobys trying to browbeat conservatives and the GOP into supporting, something that even the democrat party is dancing around.

More: a lot of folks aren’t very happy when judges and politicians thwart the will of the people, and impose homosexual marriage on states where the people have flat out voted against it.

Homsexual marriage is a progresive agenda item, and belongs to the democrat party – let them take the lead, and the heat, for it.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I don’t care for progressives, liberals, Democrats, the Left…any less than you do. There’s a lot of reasons I and others aren’t a part of them. And it has nothing at all to do with that “moby” crap you spout all the time.

Gay marriage is simply an “equal rights” issue. Why should my marriage to the person I love and want to spend my life with have to be voted on by anyone else? If I got married to my bf tomorrow, who’s present or future straight marriage would be at all negatively affected by that?

This mostly boils down to the nonsense about some perceived “definition of marriage” being changed. The only thing that changes is “man and woman”, which would be “two consenting adults”. No one else’s marriage would mean any less to any couple. And if it does, that’s your own hurdle to scale.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM

What he said:

“I think ‘Will & Grace’ probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody’s ever done.”

What it means:

When you live with a homosexual, the US government will provide and install an automatic laugh track in your house programmed to activate any time a homosexual says anything.

BobMbx on May 7, 2012 at 2:01 PM

What happens on November 7th? President Obama becomes a gay-marriage advocate and full bore Communist. They’re not connected, except that they would hurt him the day before.

RBMN on May 7, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Gay marriage advocate and full bore should never be used in the same sentence.

Happy Nomad on May 7, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Exactly.

Paul-Cincy on May 7, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Not only that, but people overlook the fact that this is in truth an overturning of marriage as it has always been defined as being between a man and a woman.

And the advocacy of shredding the definition of marriage is in no way, shape or form a conservative position. Since when do conservatives suggest that an institution should be suddenly shredded without thought of the consequences to families and society?

INC on May 7, 2012 at 2:03 PM

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM

you’re absolutely correct. they have changed Christmas break to winter solstice happy time, etc, etc, etc, and the world is better for it.

GhoulAid on May 7, 2012 at 2:04 PM

For the life of me I will never understand why Obama picked Biden. The fact that democrats are musing this person to be on the next ticket is even more confusing.

rubberneck on May 7, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Homosexuals are their own worst enemy. It’s nice for Biden or whomever to paint the idea that all gays are loving couples yearning for equal rights or something. But for all that, public perception sours when images from one of the gay pride events and all the in-your-face sexual preference and lewd behavior is on display. I don’t want to know anybody’s sexual orientation and I sure don’t think that something that so fundamentally changes society should be implemented on the basis of percieved and largely mythical inequities in the current definition of marriage.

Happy Nomad on May 7, 2012 at 2:07 PM

I’m pretty certain that that lawsuit would hit the brick wall known as the First Amendment.

TMOverbeck on May 7, 2012 at 1:58 PM

That same brick wall that allows restaurants to serve (or not) anyone they choose, by right?

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 2:08 PM

If I got married to my bf tomorrow, who’s present or future straight marriage would be at all negatively affected by that?

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Ask Elaine Huguenin about the negative effects of same-sex marriage.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 2:08 PM

For the life of me I will never understand why Obama picked Biden. The fact that democrats are musing this person to be on the next ticket is even more confusing.

rubberneck on May 7, 2012 at 2:07 PM

To be fair, that they were able to elect Barack Obama means that they could nominate an Irish Setter and stand a fair shot at winning.

NoDonkey on May 7, 2012 at 2:09 PM

You are being generous with the Jerry Lewis comparison. Sean Hayes was hand-picked to be the gay Stepin Fetchit. It’s a tribute to Hayes’s talent that he transcended that grotesque stereotype and reached into Lewis territory, but I could never bring myself to watch more than a couple minutes of that terrible show.

I think you misunderstand me. Hayes was hand-picked to LITERALLY portray Jerry Lewis. The fact you don’t seem to be aware of this kind of makes my point, about how his best work is overshadowed by his most notorious work.

BTW, I could never stand Lewis as a kid, but I’m watching his movies now on DVD and think he is really terrific.

Mr. Arkadin on May 7, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Glad to see this! Enjoy!

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 2:11 PM

For such a non-popular issue coming from such a small percentage of Americans, the gay marriage issue sure does seem to get yer dander up.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Well, it’s always used as a political football – and what makes it amusing to me is that the side who constantly finger-points at the other side for not being brave and standing up for gay marriage are just as chicken sh1t about holding the ball and running for the touchdown. So it continues to get tossed from side to side.

We both know the larger issue is the courts and judges who do whatever the hell they feel like doing regardless of what the populace wants (or voted, such as California).

Disclaimer – I could care less who gets married and who doesn’t. I’m one of the few who doesn’t want government in marriage at all. Civil unions for everybody just to get the legal ducks in a row, and if you want it blessed in a religious ceremony then go ahead.

tdpwells on May 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM

What rational person would be opposed to gay or same-sex marriage?

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM

It’s perfectly rational to say “Hey, let’s take a breath before we redefine the meaning of marriage for the first time in recorded human history just because a relative handful of people are shrieking.”

Kensington on May 7, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Nothing like pandering to the gay vote.

Yesterday, in Kalifornia, a legislator proposed a new law requiring that all businesses having contracts with the state indicate (check the box) if that business is owned by gays or lesbians.

He says that this is just FYI for the state, that there is no plan on establishing “quotas” for gay-run businesses.

Yeah – perhaps he should dig up Hubert H. Humphrey. During the Civil Rights era, he defended Affirmative Action, stating unequivocally that THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH QUOTAS!

GarandFan on May 7, 2012 at 2:13 PM

“Julia, kiss that girl over there. Come over here lady and kiss Julia!
…oh, that’s no lady”
-Slow Joe Blow(s)

askwhatif on May 7, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Disclaimer – I could care less who gets married and who doesn’t. I’m one of the few who doesn’t want government in marriage at all. Civil unions for everybody just to get the legal ducks in a row, and if you want it blessed in a religious ceremony then go ahead.

This.

Have some civil construct for the family unit and get them the heck out of the marryin’ business altogether.

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 2:14 PM

It’s perfectly rational to say “Hey, let’s take a breath before we redefine the meaning of marriage for the first time in recorded human history just because a relative handful of people are shrieking.”

Kensington on May 7, 2012 at 2:13 PM

The meaning of marriage isn’t redefined in a same-sex marriage. Leave your hysteria at the door, please.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 2:15 PM

He who believes nothing will say anything.

Marcola on May 7, 2012 at 2:16 PM

More: a lot of folks aren’t very happy when judges and politicians thwart the will of the people, and impose homosexual marriage on states where the people have flat out voted against it.

Homsexual marriage is a progresive agenda item, and belongs to the democrat party – let them take the lead, and the heat, for it.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Likewise, many people aren’t very happy when the tyranny of the majority can dictate what rights and privileges a minority group will be afforded.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Have some civil construct for the family unit and get them the heck out of the marryin’ business altogether.

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 2:14 PM

And the religious and other folks who don’t want to cater to a same sex marriage, it’s ok for them to get sued?

Because they’re getting sued now, you know.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Jetboy, I respect your point of view, and I truly believe you, as well as every american, should vote their heart and mind on it. On the same token, can you not respect my POV, if I whole-heartedly believe it to be sin against God that I could never support? …and for me personally, if I voted for same-sex “marriage”, it would be the same as endorsing a sin?
Now, I must say as a christian, I believe that in and of myself, I’m no better than the very vilest of sinners, (I’m trusting in Christ’s righteousness alone), but though I’m none the better and am a sinner myself, I still believe I shouldn’t endorse sin.

W.KY-hillbilly on May 7, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Most conservative-myself included-support civil unions. Marriage should ONLY be between one man and one woman.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 7, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I second that.
Someone tell Mitt.

askwhatif on May 7, 2012 at 2:20 PM

@toddstarnes Carney says Obama’s view on gay marriage is still “evolving.”

@toddstarnes Question posed at WH Briefing: Is president comfortable with men marrying men?

@SooperMexican “He opposes bans on gay marriage, but he’s not yet supportive of gay marriage?” question to @Presssec unanswered.. lol.

@TheDCVince: Carney just now: “Marriage is a state issue”

@ByronTau: Q: Is marriage a civil liberty? Carney: “You’ll have to ask civil libertarians or lawyers.”

Flora Duh on May 7, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Ask Elaine Huguenin about the negative effects of same-sex marriage.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 2:08 PM

That’s all you have to say?

First off, this isn’t about that photog’s own marriage…which is the topic at hand here. Second, I have always said that I do not agree with the same-sex marriage gals in their case against the photographer. Just go find another photog to take your wedding pictures.

But also, if this woman were to refuse to take an interracial couple’s marriage pics, or two Jews, etc would you still support her on that? When you run a small business, or even a large one, you…by law…can’t discriminate. Agree with it or not, that’s what the law is…gay marriage or no gay marriage.

So again I ask…Who’s marriage is negatively affected by two guys or two gals getting married?

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM

And the religious and other folks who don’t want to cater to a same sex marriage, it’s ok for them to get sued?

Because they’re getting sued now, you know.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Why would I be okay with them getting sued when I just got finished saying that litigating the churches would become a hammer wielded by advocates to get people on board, their own religious beliefs notwithstanding?

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Likewise, many people aren’t very happy when the tyranny of the majority can dictate what rights and privileges a minority group will be afforded.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Folks now get to have special “rights and privileges” based on their choice of sexual partners?

Where in the Constitution is that, pray tell?

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Likewise, many people aren’t very happy when the tyranny of the majority can dictate what rights and privileges a minority group will be afforded.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Hey, more dishonesty. What rights are minorities denied?

NotCoach on May 7, 2012 at 2:26 PM

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM

So, same sex marriage doesn’t effect straight people – until it does, then too bad bigot.

Once again, you show your true Moby colors.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Joe Biden is not a devout Catholic. He is a devout dunce!

tomshup on May 7, 2012 at 2:28 PM

First off, this isn’t about that photog’s own marriage…which is the topic at hand here…. Agree with it or not, that’s what the law is…gay marriage or no gay marriage.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Actually, the religious liberties of others IS the topic here, you just want to try and shoehorn it into a narrow focus of who can or cannot get married. Forcing other people to act against their creed should be a violation of the First Amendment, but you seem to think their rights are only being violated if they are forced to marry or something.

And the fact that you not only acknowledge the reality of looming litigation but welcome it demonstrates that I am not as unrealistic to suggest this as others here have claimed.

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 2:28 PM

but..but…but…
if gays marry gays, then what will Planned Parenthood do for funding? Free AIDs counseling?
/ (the snark is silent)

askwhatif on May 7, 2012 at 2:33 PM

The radius of the Earth is approximately 3959 miles. Biden’s well of stupid is at least that deep.

swinia sutki on May 7, 2012 at 2:33 PM

If gay marriage is, as you say, not a popular issue, why are people like you so worked up about it?

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 1:36 PM

.
Because it is being “forced” upon us , inspite of it’s unpopularity.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 2:34 PM

I always love how gays give Obama a total pass on not committing to supporting same sex marriage yet every time a Republican says they support civil unions but not marriage they’re somehow the worst kind of bigot. Personally, I think gays should be able to get married if individual states vote on it or pass a law that says it’s allowed. It shouldn’t be a federal issue at all. Marriage isn’t a right, for straight people either. It never has been.

Cyhort on May 7, 2012 at 2:34 PM

So again I ask…Who’s marriage is negatively affected by two guys or two gals getting married?

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM

.
Nobody else’s marriage is affected by it, American society at large is negatively affected by the acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate alternative normality AND gay marriage.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Ask Elaine Huguenin about the negative effects of same-sex marriage.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 2:08 PM

My neighbor, a pastor for over 30 years, had to turn in his license to perform marriage, because he refused to go against his beliefs.

askwhatif on May 7, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Gay marriage is just another kind of mandate like ObamaCare.

Blue Collar Todd on May 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM

What rational person would be opposed to gay or same-sex marriage?

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 1:59 PM

.
Huh uh . . . the question is: What rational person would be in favor of gay or same-sex marriage?

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Some old Scotus cases

In Reynolds v. United States (1878) the Supreme Court determined that “[Polygamy] is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity had produced in the Western world.”

In Davis v. Beason (1890), a similar ruling was made: “Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. . . . To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind. If they are crimes, then to teach, advise and counsel their practice is to aid in their commission, and such teaching and counseling are themselves criminal and proper subjects of punishment, as aiding and abetting crime are in all other cases.”

In The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States (1890), the court determined that “the property of the said corporation . . . [is to be used to promote] the practice of polygamy — a crime against the laws, and abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world. . . . The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity had produced in the Western world.”

jp on May 7, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Huh uh . . . the question is: What rational person would be in favor of gay or same-sex marriage?

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM

You have never come down on the side of liberty.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Will and Grace a vanguard of gay liberation? Really? Every gay character in that series was a stupid completely self absorbed buffoon.

Kinda like Joe Biden.

Mike Honcho on May 7, 2012 at 2:46 PM

The meaning of marriage isn’t redefined in a same-sex marriage. Leave your hysteria at the door, please.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 2:15 PM

.
Yes it is.

I see your definition of ‘hysteria’ is also “redefined”.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Because it is being “forced” upon us , inspite of it’s unpopularity.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 2:34 PM

What is being “forced” upon you or anyone? The legalization of gay marriage doesn’t mean you have to marry someone of the same sex. If you don’t like gay marriage, fine…don’t get one. Just don’t tell me that I cannot get one simply because you and some others don’t like it.

Actually, the religious liberties of others IS the topic here, you just want to try and shoehorn it into a narrow focus of who can or cannot get married. Forcing other people to act against their creed should be a violation of the First Amendment, but you seem to think their rights are only being violated if they are forced to marry or something.

And the fact that you not only acknowledge the reality of looming litigation but welcome it demonstrates that I am not as unrealistic to suggest this as others here have claimed.

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 2:28 PM

I’ve already stated that I did not agree with that gay couple bringing litigation against that photographer. Vindictiveness is by no means the sole property of gays.

This case tho has nothing to do with anyone being forced to go against their religious views…Forcing the Catholic church services to provide birth control is a good example of that, a photographer operating a business in the secular world refusing a client based on sexual orientation violates secular law…not any religious conviction.

So, same sex marriage doesn’t effect straight people – until it does, then too bad bigot.

Once again, you show your true Moby colors.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Once again, you go off on some other tangent as usual. Were we not talking about gay marriage affect straight marriage? You seem to have extended that to straight people. Which you have not provided any valid examples of gay marriage negatively affecting anyone else’s marriage.

Do try to stay on course, huh?

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 2:47 PM

You have never come down on the side of liberty.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 2:45 PM

.
And you’ve never come down on the side of “recognizing God”.

So where does that leave us?

I defy your definition of ‘liberty’.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 2:49 PM

In the old days….Thomas Jefferson had gays Castrated for crimes against nature….as Gov. Of Virginia

jp on May 7, 2012 at 2:51 PM

This case tho has nothing to do with anyone being forced to go against their religious views…Forcing the Catholic church services to provide birth control is a good example of that, a photographer operating a business in the secular world refusing a client based on sexual orientation violates secular law…not any religious conviction.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 2:47 PM

So only a church organizational body is afforded the right to free exercise of religion in the Constitution?

If you believe she is in violation of the law and not afforded protection of her religious liberties in this case, for what reason do you oppose the litigation in the first place?

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 2:52 PM

And now that I am looking back on earlier comments… why do you talk about “equal rights” but use the discriminatory number “two” in your definition of marriage?

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Folks now get to have special “rights and privileges” based on their choice of sexual partners?

Where in the Constitution is that, pray tell?

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 2:25 PM

I always laught at the conservative argument that gays already have “equal” rights because they can marry someone of the opposite gender. They’re GAY, morons! They couldn’t marry the opposite gender unless living a total lie. That’s like saying blacks in the 1940′s had equal rights because, hey, they had their own water fountains too.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Nobody else’s marriage is affected by it, American society at large is negatively affected by the acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate alternative normality AND gay marriage.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Finally, an admission gay marriage does not negatively affect any straight marriage.

Of course, the rest of your comment there leaves something to be desired. To which my answer is:

You can go on believing that gay marriage is somehow a society killer…no one will stop ya. You don’t have to accept it. But to say that you’re against gay marriage based on your prejudiced, homophobic viewpoint and infer that it’s a valid reason to ban gay marriage, you’re gonna just have to grow up.

I’m sure there were many, especially in the South, that saw blacks as not worthy to be considered full citizens, and were sent into a tizzy when segregation was ended, claiming they were forced to accept blacks as “normal” and such.

So again, my heart doesn’t quite fall out for you on this simply because you don’t “like it”.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Do try to stay on course, huh?

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I completely reject your obvious and silly attempt to so narrowly define the topic.

The FACTS are, same sex marriage WILL effect straight people in serious and devastating ways, and the meme that “it won’t effect anyone else” is a bold face lie that is constantly repeated. A lie that YOU constantly repeat.

If an honest poll of same sex marriage was put out, where the question was, “would you support same sex marriage, if straight people could get sued if they didn’t cater to them” – support would be pretty close to zero.

As in all progresive agenda items, honesty is like sunlight to roaches.

Rebar on May 7, 2012 at 2:55 PM

What is being “forced” upon you or anyone? The legalization of gay marriage doesn’t mean you have to marry someone of the same sex. If you don’t like gay marriage, fine…don’t get one. Just don’t tell me that I cannot get one simply because you and some others don’t like it.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 2:47 PM

.
The “recognition” of gay marriage is being forced upon us.

And I WILL continue to fight against having my government give recognition to it, which means I WILL tell you you’re not allowed to get one in this country, period.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2012 at 2:57 PM

That’s like saying blacks in the 1940′s had equal rights because, hey, they had their own water fountains too.

So conservative arguments are “laughable” but not the constant comparison of gay “rights” to black rights, correct? You know, with all those gay protestors being set upon by dogs and fire hoses and what not. Because hey, medical power of attorney privilges which can be enshrined in existing law anyway is absolutely the same thing as access to water, right?

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 2:58 PM

‘Will & Grace’. Never seen such a show where the title characters are allowed to fade into the wallpaper, while the secondary cast sizzled. By the 3rd (or 5th, or 8th) season, everyone knew it should be called ‘Jack & Karen’!

;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 7, 2012 at 2:58 PM

So only a church organizational body is afforded the right to free exercise of religion in the Constitution?

If you believe she is in violation of the law and not afforded protection of her religious liberties in this case, for what reason do you oppose the litigation in the first place?

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I believe the whole incident and subsequent legal case here had more to do with creating a scene and making some kind of point than it did with any real emotional or any other damages caused by the photog’s refusal. American society has become far too litigation happy…usually spurred on by attorneys and activist groups for some media face time.

And the constitution is pretty clear on religious freedom…No state sponsored religion, and the state cannot interfere with the free practice of a person’s religious freedoms. But say I get a client at work (advertising agency) who hires my company to make up some graphic work for an abortion clinic. As a Catholic, abortion is in direct conflict with my personal religious views. Does that mean I am protected by the constitution to be able to refuse doing work for that client?

If I refused, I’d be surprised if I weren’t fired.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 3:03 PM

The meaning of marriage isn’t redefined in a same-sex marriage. Leave your hysteria at the door, please.

Dante on May 7, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Dante, it merely redefines the fundamental substance of marriage. It may be a good idea to think this through more carefully and calmly.

Mason on May 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM

You know, with all those gay protestors being set upon by dogs and fire hoses and what not. Because hey, medical power of attorney privilges which can be enshrined in existing law anyway is absolutely the same thing as access to water, right?

The Schaef on May 7, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Apparently you never heard of the Stonewall Riots or Matthew Shephard. Please educate yourself before you type. You’ll embarrass yourself less.

inthemiddle on May 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4