Breaking: Noted gay-marriage supporter finally drops cynical charade

posted at 3:38 pm on May 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, 16 years after going on the record in support of gay marriage, The One finally decides it’s safe to reclaim his old position. (AmSpec’s James Antle tweets, “Obama may be the only person in America who supported gay marriage in 1996 but opposed it in 2011.”) His base will swoon over this, needless to say — expect the mother of all leg tingles on “Hardball” tonight — but even as someone who agrees with him, I can’t get past the pure opportunism of it. In fact, fellow gay-marriage supporter Andy Levy flags this NYT tweet in naked disgust:

Some Obama advisers were divided on decision to support same-sex marriage, but concluded his brand has been damaged enough by hedging.

That’s what it was all about: The brand, plus the political awkwardness created by Biden’s candor on “Meet the Press” this past Sunday. I used to ask whether anyone seriously believes O opposes gay marriage. Now I have to start asking whether anyone seriously believes O would have stopped feigning opposition if it was still a clear political winner for him to keep it up. His “courage” here, as in all things, is about his own reelection chances. If there’s anything for gay rights supporters to celebrate today, it’s the fact that popular opinion has shifted enough that even an opportunist as transparent as The One thinks it’s safe enough to take this position before a national election.

Note the fine print, though:

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.

I don’t believe that for a moment either but that’s going to be his new compromise. Instead of “I support gay rights but oppose gay marriage” it’s now “I support gay marriage but oppose federal intervention.” Even so, if/when the Supreme Court finds a right to same-sex marriage in the Equal Protection Clause, rest assured that the statement from the White House that day will be nothing but celebratory. This position too is a charade.

As for the politics, Karl notes in the Greenroom that Team Hopenchange may now be shifting from a campaign aimed at winning back disaffected working-class swing voters to a campaign aimed mainly at maximizing turnout among their base:

What yesterday’s elections may have told Team Obama is that the bitter clingers out there are bitter enough to give 41% of the Democrat vote in West Virginia to a convicted felon and to ease a ban on same-sex marriage into the North Carolina constitution. They may have concluded that their energies are better spent targeting more socially liberal white college graduates in the suburbs of northern Virginia, Philadeplphia, Denver, etc. than wasting time on trying to persuade Rust Belt Jacksonians to pull the lever for Barack Obama again while (as Allahpundit suggests) considering discontent among socially conservative African-Americans an acceptable risk now. The establishment’s mockery of Obama’s unevolved position may have suggested to Team Obama that painting Mitt Romney as a right-wing extremist is made more difficult when the president shares Romney’s position on SSM.

For an extended list of pros versus cons, read Chris Cillizza. Romney reiterated today that there’ll be no “evolving” on his end so the contrast is there if Obama wants to draw it. Which, I think, he almost surely doesn’t: There’s too much uncertainty on both sides about how swing voters will react if it becomes a major issue in the campaign. Will they follow North Carolina’s and other states’ lead by voting against gay marriage and its proponent-in-chief? Or will they tune Romney out because he’s not talking about jobs and his economic program? Outside of LGBT fundraisers, I doubt you’ll hear O talk at length again about this issue before November. Exit quotation from GOProud’s Chris Barron: “It is time the left came to terms with the fact that this president will only be for same-sex marriage when he believes it is a political winner for him.”

Update: Some buzz on Twitter for this blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moment in O’s remarks: “when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf…” His behalf?


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 3 4 5 6 7

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

You mean like NC did yesterday, Mr. Preezy Evolver? I think he’s getting resigned to the big picture of a loss in Nov. There won’t be an Oct. surprise as much as he’s hoping for a miracle.

Kissmygrits on May 9, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Kataklysmic on May 9, 2012 at 5:53 PM

I’m not so sure!!..:)

PS..I think your idea of the Dems moving Convention to VA is interesting..:)

Dire Straits on May 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Fixed..:)

Dire Straits on May 9, 2012 at 5:58 PM

My God liberals are giddy right now. We’ll see how far calling people in the heartland bigots goes for them. The left is going to ruin America.

rubberneck on May 9, 2012 at 5:59 PM

The President of the United States has endorsed gay marriage! It took some time, but it happened. A day for the history books – a great step FORWARD progressives and an awful one for bigots.

inthemiddle on May 9, 2012 at 3:55 PM

What changes because of this?

Night Owl on May 9, 2012 at 6:00 PM

The left is going to ruin America.

rubberneck on May 9, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I prefer to think America is going to ruin the left.

Paul-Cincy on May 9, 2012 at 6:01 PM

His behalf? HIS BEHALF? What is the military now, his private force? What an arrogant sob.

Kissmygrits on May 9, 2012 at 6:01 PM

So, since marriage is all about the love now, where it apparently wasn’t before i guess, we’re down with polygamists as long as they love each other, right?

clearbluesky on May 9, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Time Mag: Will Black Voters Punish Obama For His Support of Gay Rights?

The President might be on the right side of history, but he’s on the wrong side of a crucial voting bloc

Black voters, who were critical to Obama’s ‘08 victory, are strongly against marriage equality. A recent Washington Post/ABC poll found 55% of blacks oppose gay marriage and 42% support it, which is almost the opposite of white voters—53% support and 43% oppose.

Such lopsided terms. “right side of history”, “marriage equality”, “oppose gay marriage”.

More like “in line with history”, “redefining marriage”, “support traditional marriage”.

AverageJoe on May 9, 2012 at 6:03 PM

The fact of life is, “gay sex” is nothing like heterosexual sex. It’s just mutual masturbation.

Paul-Cincy on May 9, 2012 at 6:03 PM

If the GOP thought it was going to help them, they would be celebrating it. Conservative media is angry and pissed off – which can only mean they know this was a good decision for the President.

inthemiddle on May 9, 2012 at 4:16 PM

You just got done saying Fox News praised him for this. Were you lying then or are you lying now, or are you just pulling stuff out of your butt, as usual?

Night Owl on May 9, 2012 at 6:04 PM

What changes because of this?

Night Owl on May 9, 2012 at 6:00 PM

The same thing that happened when we got a black president. Nothing. We now have a president with another adjective. It doesn’t reduce the deficit. It doesn’t pass a budget. It doesn’t grant another gay wedding. It doesn’t do anything but make libs feel validated. It’s all they seek from life.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Oops, should have been “against history”. Marriage has never, ever, been applicable to same sex unions in history.

AverageJoe on May 9, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Allah, you and the homo in the WH are the only one’s who care about this!

tomshup on May 9, 2012 at 6:04 PM

What is the military now, his private force?

No, he’s the Commander in Chief. The military is acts on his orders.

Mmm...Burritos on May 9, 2012 at 6:05 PM

citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept

It’s how they were taught.

Prufrock on May 9, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Dire Straits on May 9, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Well, you may be right as my evidence is anecdotal but I live in AZ and a lot of my friends and associates are Hispanic Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008. If the reaction I am hearing so far is any indication, he’s going to lose some votes over this.

Kataklysmic on May 9, 2012 at 6:05 PM

he supports its a states rights issue but is disappointed that NC voted against it…

cmsinaz on May 9, 2012 at 6:05 PM

citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept

It’s how they were taught.

Prufrock on May 9, 2012 at 6:05 PM

So we’re being governed by a 14 year old girl with the hair of Allen Iverson. Great.

(It has to be an improvement over her predecessor, though. Right?)

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 6:07 PM

“You know how I know you’re full of crap? You start that sentence with “in the landmark case”. Nice copy n paste job.?”

So it wasn’t a land mark case? Sorry for giving one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in US history proper respect. Why would I copy and paste those 4 words? Makes no sense.

No, gays cannot “marry.” They can enter civil unions which are significantly inferior both economically and socially.

I guess that depends on you define “behavior.” But I, as do many others, believe gay people have about as much choice regarding their orientation as do blacks do the color of their skin. Both skin color and this “behavior” have their basis in genetics. Being gay, in my opinion, is not a choice.

And “marriage” meaning something? Perhaps it does to some people. But the fact is, a majority of people get divorced, and many, many people cheat on their spouses. Again, in my opinion, gays shouldn’t have settle for the title “union” as opposed to “marriage.” This is inherently unequal by virtue of separating the two.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Conservatives are fooling themselves if they think Obama is going to lose black voters over this. Also I suspect you probably don’t know many black Obama voters. I got my haircut this afternoon at the barber shop. No one had anything nice to say about gay people, no one expressed even the slightest inkling of not voting for Obama. And I live in Virginia.

libfreeordie on May 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Majority of my friends are black, have been most of my life, and since I lived all over the southwest, too, I’m tight with a lot of vatos.

Here’s what’s coming Libby. Bank on it….

Bary won’t lose Northeastern black voters. Some older ones in the South, though, won’t show up at the poll. Why?

Because they got to see the first black President be inaugurated, and he did what he could. Now, the more of a progressive agenda he takes on – Same-sex marriage, climate change, abortion – the more unrelatable he’s going to become. Happens to all Presidents with their core base.

While it won’t matter in certain Southern states, it’s going to cost him North Carolina and Ohio. VA is too tough a call. He also just moved PA in swing territory.

As for the Latino vote, if Barry takes on one more social issue and dodges the economy, again, he can count Florida and Nevada good-bye, and will be fighting for his life in CO and New Mex. Arizona will be long gone.

Latinos are not driven by illegal immigration; they’re driven by work. If they don’t have work, it forces some friends/family to move back. That will be on 0.

Barry’s problem, is now that he’s greased the gay advocates, the climate zealots are going to be pounding for their piece of flesh, along with La Raza and other diversity groups.

budfox on May 9, 2012 at 6:07 PM

So, since marriage is all about the love now, where it apparently wasn’t before i guess, we’re down with polygamists as long as they love each other, right?

clearbluesky on May 9, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Of course such arguments are always dismissed as rhetorical fallacies, but I am yet to hear a cogent explanation for why, if same-sex marriage is no threat to marriage in general and the culture specifically, why not polygamy? What’s the difference? When it comes to raising healthy children, or forming stable unions, or maintaining cultural bedrocks, what’s the difference between gay marriages and polygamist marriages? Why don’t defenses of the former also apply to the latter? Anyone?

Rational Thought on May 9, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Kataklysmic on May 9, 2012 at 6:05 PM

I’m sorry I was not clear..I agree with you..I think Obie lost a lot of votes today!..:)

Dire Straits on May 9, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Let’s sum up three and half years.

- Insurmountable debt.
- Mass unemployment
- Ripping off the tax payers to fund the UAW labor unions.
- Ridiculous waste on green technology fantasies.
- Forcing every american into privatized health care system
- Using success as a political wedge.
- Now the progressive gay agenda to destroy our ranks and marriage in the eyes of God.

Oh, I can’t wait for this election….

rubberneck on May 9, 2012 at 6:08 PM

The President of the United States has endorsed gay marriage! It took some time, but it happened. A day for the history books – a great step FORWARD progressives and an awful one for bigots.

inthemiddle on May 9, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Do you honestly think conservatives give a crap about this announcement? LOL Seriously. It’s not as if he “changed his mind”…he just finally decided to come clean. Who cares? He’s still a SCOAMF.

IrishEi on May 9, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Being gay, in my opinion, is not a choice.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Neither is being alcoholic. We see a genetic predisposition to it. Yet, an alcoholic doesn’t get a free pass on a DWI charge. DISCRIMINATION! you claim, right?

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 6:15 PM

burrata on May 9, 2012 at 5:30 PM

مضحك

Bmore on May 9, 2012 at 6:15 PM

The President of the United States has endorsed gay marriage! It took some time, but it happened. A day for the history books – a great step FORWARD progressives and an awful one for bigots.

inthemiddle on May 9, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Yup.

Bigots like yourself finally overplayed your hand.

Dumb and desperate Obama just made it clear that he is going to force churches to marry gays just like he is forcing them to pay for abortions.

Think that’s going to be a winner? LOL.

northdallasthirty on May 9, 2012 at 6:16 PM

“Neither is being alcoholic. We see a genetic predisposition to it. Yet, an alcoholic doesn’t get a free pass on a DWI charge. DISCRIMINATION! you claim, right?”

Choosing to drink alcohol (at least initially) is indeed a choice. And your example is flawed because gays aren’t looking for a “special pass” — they are looking to be treated the EQUALLY under the law. That is, to be treated the same as everyone else. Hardly a special pass, if you ask me.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 6:19 PM

The President of the United States has endorsed gay marriage! It took some time, but it happened. A day for the history books – a great step FORWARD progressives and an awful one for bigots.

inthemiddle on May 9, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Anytime the left is on a losing side of an argument, this is what they do. Play that card. You have no standing. ; )

Bmore on May 9, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Anytime the left is on a losing side of an argument, this is what they do. Play that card. You have no standing. ; )

Bmore on May 9, 2012 at 6:19 PM

If it is touchy-feely-meaningless crap, it’s HISTORIC!

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 6:21 PM

In terms of civil rights, everyone gay or straight has the civil right to enter into marriage with a marriage license for the purpose of procreation, there is no discrimination.

Fleuries on May 9, 2012 at 6:22 PM

The President of the United States has endorsed gay marriage! It took some time, but it happened. A day for the history books – a great step FORWARD progressives and an awful one for bigots.

inthemiddle on May 9, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Well, bub, it seems that even the liberal media (as opposed to Obama trolls) see this as the craven, political pandering that it is. Even Gawker & The Nation call him out, for the love of cheese! When you can’t get Gawker & The Nation spinning for you . . .

(I’ll post links, so you can know how to think on this):

http://gawker.com/5909002

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/09/152330653/the-nation-obamas-phony-position-on-gay-marriage

Dark Star on May 9, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Conservatives are fooling themselves if they think Obama is going to lose black voters over this. Also I suspect you probably don’t know many black Obama voters. I got my haircut this afternoon at the barber shop. No one had anything nice to say about gay people, no one expressed even the slightest inkling of not voting for Obama. And I live in Virginia.

libfreeordie on May 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM

It’s not what percentage vote for Obama – it’s how many show up to vote. When Super PAC’s start plastering this all over Newport News/Hampton Roads, you’ll figure it out. Obama just handed us the election.

The Count on May 9, 2012 at 6:24 PM

PS..I think your idea of moving the Dems moving Convention to VA is interesting..:)

Dire Straits on May 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM

It won’t help him…check out the state GOP vs. ‘rat…

ladyingray on May 9, 2012 at 6:24 PM

In terms of civil rights, everyone gay or straight has the civil right to enter into marriage with a marriage license for the purpose of procreation, there is no discrimination.

Fleuries on May 9, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Actually, it’s more that marriage is applied only to those relationships whose natural activity is highly likely to result in procreation as a means of encouraging the people involved to take care of and raise what they produce. The benefits and privileges of marriage tie directly to that goal.

Gays and lesbians don’t have the issue with procreation; therefore, there’s no need for marriage.

northdallasthirty on May 9, 2012 at 6:24 PM

AverageJoe on May 9, 2012 at 6:03 PM

It’s Time Mag. What did you expect? :-)

Resist We Much on May 9, 2012 at 6:25 PM

“In terms of civil rights, everyone gay or straight has the civil right to enter into marriage with a marriage license for the purpose of procreation, there is no discrimination.”

I’m sorry, but since when has marriage been a contract geared toward procreation? Are you opposed to people who don’t want to have children getting married? What about those who are sterile/not fertile?

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 6:25 PM

I live in Virginia.

libfreeordie on May 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Gee, Skippy, using your own “logic”, that makes you a Southern Redneck. After all Virginia is well below the Mason-Dixon line.

Virginia also has 15, count ‘em 15, auto racing tracks, many of which hold NASCAR events.

You must be so proud.

Del Dolemonte on May 9, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Choosing to drink alcohol (at least initially) is indeed a choice. And your example is flawed because gays aren’t looking for a “special pass” — they are looking to be treated the EQUALLY under the law. That is, to be treated the same as everyone else. Hardly a special pass, if you ask me.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 6:19 PM

They’re looking for privileges and entitlements (a marriage certificate, tax benefits, a social security entitlement) that go along with an activity (marriage) that they aren’t engaging in. That’s a “special pass”. They don’t want to be treated the same as everyone else. Everyone else has to actually get married in order to receive the treatment due to a marriage.

A genetically “gay” person can get married, just like a genetically “alcoholic” person can abstain from drink.

joe_doufu on May 9, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Actually, it’s more that marriage is applied only to those relationships whose natural activity is highly likely to result in procreation as a means of encouraging the people involved to take care of and raise what they produce. The benefits and privileges of marriage tie directly to that goal.

Gays and lesbians don’t have the issue with procreation; therefore, there’s no need for marriage.

northdallasthirty on May 9, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Yeah, but why does nature hate gays?

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 6:26 PM

You would think that those who are running a ponzi scheme (Obama, Dems, SSI) would be protective of relationships that create new levels of investors in the scheme.

Jussayin’

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Obviously, this is all about the election, but, exactly how does obama think this will benefit him? This flip-flop will probably increase donations from gay groups (as if he needs money – suckers!), but, it won’t increase actual support. Those who truly support same-sex marriage already support obama because they knew that it would just be a matter of time before he publicly admitted what everyone has known all along. This ridiculously transparent pander-shift just reinforces the obvious, but it won’t increase turnout or support for obama – in fact, it has greater potential to do harm rather than good for obama’s chances in November.

Pork-Chop on May 9, 2012 at 6:27 PM

It won’t help him…check out the state GOP vs. ‘rat…

ladyingray on May 9, 2012 at 6:24 PM

I hope you are right!!..:)

Dire Straits on May 9, 2012 at 6:27 PM

budfox on May 9, 2012 at 6:07 PM

This sounds really great and all, but I still think Blacks and Hispanics will turn out in droves to vote for Obama. I know for a fact they will in CA, it happens every election. Obama has smashed the economy, people are out of work, many minorities rely on state assistance checks just to get by. They won’t risk giving up the gravy train because President Cool is down with the gays now.

1984 in real life on May 9, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Hmmmm…Hillary wears no makeup as of two days ago…Obama now supports gay marriage. How soon until Hillary comes out of the closet and Obama makes her the VP? October surprise?

bs4948800 on May 9, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Obama convinced by 2 children to change fundamental moral position.

Smart Power!

profitsbeard on May 9, 2012 at 6:34 PM

I was searching for something else, but I stumbled across this post of Doc Zero’s back when he was still writing in the Green Room.

In Defense of Marriage

Good writing and thinking as always.

INC on May 9, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Yeah, but why does nature hate gays?

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 6:26 PM

As mentioned above, gays can get married and raise kids just like anyone else.

pedestrian on May 9, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Being gay, in my opinion, is not a choice.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Better hope we don’t discover that gay chromosome…since abortion will be the choice of many. The same folks you call bigoted homophobes will be fighting to protect your most basic right, life.

monalisa on May 9, 2012 at 6:36 PM

No, gays cannot “marry.” They can enter civil unions which are significantly inferior both economically and socially.

Civil Unions are not inferior from a state recognition and legal position, which, we’ve been told for years now, that this is all that’s wanted.

They’re deemed inferior by advocates who want the word marriage, no matter what. That’s why inane studies have arisen, where gay couples developed “mental health issues” due to the civil union label. Any time that argument has been tested outside the prog base, it implodes, because everyone has personal baggage.

If you actually gave a shit about equality, you’d be calling for the end of state-marriage licenses, and for every couple to only have access to a civil union contract.

I guess that depends on you define “behavior.” But I, as do many others, believe gay people have about as much choice regarding their orientation as do blacks do the color of their skin. Both skin color and this “behavior” have their basis in genetics. Being gay, in my opinion, is not a choice.

What about Cynthia Nixon or Anne Heche? They both admitted to choosing to be gay.

You’re either ignorant, or are banking that righties do not know the gay culture, because of some “phobia”. Either way, the LGB community knows not all are genetically gay. That’s why the LGB alphabet keeps expanding.

And “marriage” meaning something? Perhaps it does to some people. But the fact is, a majority of people get divorced, and many, many people cheat on their spouses. Again, in my opinion, gays shouldn’t have settle for the title “union” as opposed to “marriage.” This is inherently unequal by virtue of separating the two.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 6:07 PM

The majority of divorces happen within the age group of 20-30.

60% of non-faith based marriages end in divorce, compared to
30% of faith-based marriages.

So state-licensed gay marriage is going to shoot the divorce up by at least another ten percent. And secularists will use that to keep screaming about the end of marriage and religion in America.

Same-sex marriage isn’t even federalized yet, and you’re already looking for an excuse as to why gay couples can’t stop from straying?

budfox on May 9, 2012 at 6:36 PM

1984 in real life on May 9, 2012 at 6:33 PM

obaka was always going to win CA, so what does this really matter there?

ladyingray on May 9, 2012 at 6:40 PM

“Economy? What economy? Let’s talk about gay marriage for the next six months!”
–Barack 0bama

Seriously, this announcement is the mother of all Flukes. Anything to keep the GOP from focusing on Soetoro’s disastrous economic record, and no better way to do that than to keep social issues front and center.

MidniteRambler on May 9, 2012 at 6:40 PM

“They’re looking for privileges and entitlements (a marriage certificate, tax benefits, a social security entitlement) that go along with an activity (marriage) that they aren’t engaging in. That’s a “special pass”. They don’t want to be treated the same as everyone else. Everyone else has to actually get married in order to receive the treatment due to a marriage.

A genetically “gay” person can get married, just like a genetically “alcoholic” person can abstain from drink.”

You’re right, gays aren’t engaging in an activity (“marriage”) because it is prohibited by law. Wanting to be permitted by law to engage in an activity that all other consenting adults can engage in is hardly a special “pass.”

That’s like saying: “Oh, women wanted to engage in voting in the early 20th century, but they shouldn’t have been able to because as it was not permitted by law. Then women would get to secure economic benefits for themselves via the polling booth — they want a special pass (privileges and entitlements that go along with a certain activity)!

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Better hope we don’t discover that gay chromosome…since abortion will be the choice of many. The same folks you call bigoted homophobes will be fighting to protect your most basic right, life.

monalisa on May 9, 2012 at 6:36 PM

So true. The gay community would become the Pro Life community literally overnight. Hilarious irony would ensue, GOP would gain an entire voting bloc because we’d be speaking out against the mass genocide of gay babies being killed in the womb by all those “smart, sophisticated, cool” liberal mothers.

1984 in real life on May 9, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Obama convinced by 2 children to change fundamental moral position.

Smart Power!

profitsbeard on May 9, 2012 at 6:34 PM

One of which has the good judgement to think that corn rows don’t make her look like Allen Iverson (unless that’s the look she was going for).

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 6:41 PM

budfox on May 9, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Well written.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 6:43 PM

So true. The gay community would become the Pro Life community literally overnight. Hilarious irony would ensue, GOP would gain an entire voting bloc because we’d be speaking out against the mass genocide of gay babies being killed in the womb by all those “smart, sophisticated, cool” liberal mothers.

1984 in real life on May 9, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Nah. The media would only focus on the gay couples doing in vitro fertilization with genetic testing to make sure they get a gay kid. The liberal hypocrites aborting their gay babies? Wouldn’t even be on their radar.

Rational Thought on May 9, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Conservatives are fooling themselves if they think Obama is going to lose black voters over this. Also I suspect you probably don’t know many black Obama voters. I got my haircut this afternoon at the barber shop. No one had anything nice to say about gay people, no one expressed even the slightest inkling of not voting for Obama. And I live in Virginia.
 
libfreeordie on May 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM

 
Wait. “No one” = all.
 
You’re saying all black people in your community are bigots?
 
Wow.

rogerb on May 9, 2012 at 6:46 PM

You’re right, gays aren’t engaging in an activity (“marriage”) because it is prohibited by law. Wanting to be permitted by law to engage in an activity that all other consenting adults can engage in is hardly a special “pass.”

That’s like saying: “Oh, women wanted to engage in voting in the early 20th century, but they shouldn’t have been able to because as it was not permitted by law. Then women would get to secure economic benefits for themselves via the polling booth — they want a special pass (privileges and entitlements that go along with a certain activity)!

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 6:40 PM

You’re being obtuse. It is absolutely legal for gays to get married exactly the same way it is legal for all Americans to get married — to an adult of the opposite sex. What you want to give them is the rewards of marriage without actually getting married. In your version of the world they merely sodomize one another and then collect social security checks. That’s a special privilege.

joe_doufu on May 9, 2012 at 6:46 PM

I’m sorry, but since when has marriage been a contract geared toward procreation?

Since someone first realized that a) opposite-sex individuals having sex makes babies and b) babies are incapable of taking care of themselves.

Marriage is a reaction to the fact that people procreate.

Are you opposed to people who don’t want to have children getting married?

Of course not. People change their minds, accidents happen. Can’t predict the future.

What about those who are sterile/not fertile?

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Why would you support discrimination against the disabled?

If you’d like to make the argument that gays and lesbians are biologically damaged like the sterile/infertile are, then I’ll consider that as a valid argument. But as Jim McGreevey, “Bishop” Gene Robinson, Anne Heche, and Cynthia Nixon have shown, choosing to have sex with the same gender doesn’t render one infertile.

northdallasthirty on May 9, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Nah. The media would only focus on the gay couples doing in vitro fertilization with genetic testing to make sure they get a gay kid. The liberal hypocrites aborting their gay babies? Wouldn’t even be on their radar.

Rational Thought on May 9, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Just wait until they discover the factor that makes the later boys from the same mother more likely to be gay and ust that to start making straight or gay babies.

pedestrian on May 9, 2012 at 6:48 PM

“Civil Unions are not inferior from a state recognition and legal position, which, we’ve been told for years now, that this is all that’s wanted.”

In terms of economic and social benefits granted by law, civil unions and marriages are very, very unequal. So this isn’t just an argument over the word ‘marriage,’ there are real world implications here.

“What about Cynthia Nixon or Anne Heche? They both admitted to choosing to be gay.”

Why hello there, logical fallacy. Just because some people “choose” to be gay doesn’t mean other people have any choice. What is true of a part is not necessarily true of the whole.

“The majority of divorces happen within the age group of 20-30.
60% of non-faith based marriages end in divorce, compared to
30% of faith-based marriages.”

And? Last I checked, as an institution, marriage is marriage (from a heterosexual standpoint). Who ends up getting divorced is irrelevant, really.

“So state-licensed gay marriage is going to shoot the divorce up by at least another ten percent.”

Do you have any evidence to support that claim, or is that just your bigoted bias coming through?

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 6:48 PM

In your version of the world they merely sodomize one another and then collect social security checks. That’s a special privilege.

joe_doufu on May 9, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Collecting Social Security without engaging in behavior to produce the next sucker to pay for their SS check.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 6:48 PM

I actually am closer to 0bama than Romney on the gay marriage issue; I believe the federal government should let the voters, not judges, decide the gay marriage issue at the state level.

I myself would vote in favor of gay marriage, with the caveat that religious denominations who oppose it not be penalized for that stance.

Having said that, Barry’s endorsement of gay marriage does not change my opposition to him in the slightest. Legalizing gay marriage, which I support, will have no impact on my life. 0bama’s disastrous economic policies do have a negative impact on my life.

Soetoro’s statism and creepy authoritarianism make me determined to support Romney as the only available way to avert four more years of Hype and Blame.

That’s all I’m going to say on 0bama’s “evolved” stance on gay marriage, since the whole thing is nothing more than one more attempt to distract everyone from Barry’s horrid economic record.

MidniteRambler on May 9, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Via Mediaite, 16 years after going on the record in support of gay marriage, The One finally decides it’s safe to reclaim his old position

This is turning into the etch-a-sketch election. What does Obammy or Mittens stand for? Good guess and good luck!

bayam on May 9, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Maybe Shep is gay. At times I really wonder about that guy.

Susanboo on May 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Dunno. Let’s ask that fellow Shep tried to hustle up to his room from a hotel piano bar a few years back…who happened to be a writer for The (Gay) Blade.

;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on May 9, 2012 at 6:50 PM

I’m really startin’ to think Barack is looking for a “courageous decision” to blame his re-election loss on. And he thinks this is it. He’s gonna recast himself as the MLK of the gays. MLK was derided, too, you know. Barack is just a civil rights champion who was ahead of his time. Someday, way off in the future, he’ll get his giant statue on the National Mall (in rainbow pattern, of course!), and losing re-election will have all been worth it. And the Obamamedia gets to blame his loss on “anti-gay backlash.” Thus, he never had a failed presidency. It was the courage, you see, the courage that did him in.

Rational Thought on May 9, 2012 at 5:54 PM

You may be onto something. Maybe we won’t have to wait for the post defeat tantrum because we’ll be treated to a pre defeat hissy fit as well.

Kataklysmic on May 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM

In terms of economic and social benefits granted by law, civil unions and marriages are very, very unequal. So this isn’t just an argument over the word ‘marriage,’ there are real world implications here.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 6:48 PM

How so?

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM

obaka was always going to win CA, so what does this really matter there?

ladyingray on May 9, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Because if it happens with liberals here, it will happen with them in every state. Blacks have consistently shown that they vote according to skin color, and nothing else. Romney’s “Hispanic problem”? Who cares that he and the GOP share nearly almost all of their social views, Obama is “one of them”.

No, where Obama is going to bleed votes on this is from women. Bank on it.

1984 in real life on May 9, 2012 at 6:52 PM

For the past 6 months Obama has been on defense when he should have been on offense. He’s been creating “wars” all over the place which end up putting him on constant defense. Today was no exception. He has to be between a rock and a hard place to come out in favor of gay marriage. The gay and Lesbian community must be throwing money at him because his “people” ain’t. Sorry Black America you just aren’t showing him the love. Gotta’ follow the money.

BetseyRoss on May 9, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Maybe we won’t have to wait for the post defeat tantrum because we’ll be treated to a pre defeat hissy fit as well.

Kataklysmic on May 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Hear!..Hear!..:)

Dire Straits on May 9, 2012 at 6:55 PM

“You’re being obtuse. It is absolutely legal for gays to get married exactly the same way it is legal for all Americans to get married — to an adult of the opposite sex. What you want to give them is the rewards of marriage without actually getting married. In your version of the world they merely sodomize one another and then collect social security checks. That’s a special privilege.”

Your argument is purely definitional as it rests on your definition of “marriage.” If that definition becomes more inclusive, (like, let’s say Iowa) your argument makes no sense. Last I checked there are indeed gay couples MARRIED in Iowa as well as receiving benefits for engaging in that activity — something your argument doesn’t allow for.

Furthermore, my previous “obtuse” rebuttal stands.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 6:56 PM

In terms of economic and social benefits granted by law, civil unions and marriages are very, very unequal. So this isn’t just an argument over the word ‘marriage,’ there are real world implications here.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Not really, but I’m glad the North Carolina voters were smart enough not to let “civil unions” get a foot in the door. “Civil unions” are to gay marriage as “cases of rape and incest” are to abortion: a simple concession that seems palatable to a majority of voters, but once accepted, removes any real logical argument you have for opposing the full liberal agenda.

If we grant that it’s a good thing for the state to certify and endorse a couple of dudes sodomizing one another, then all we’re arguing about is the word that’s printed on the certificate. Conservatives who give in to “civil unions” are suckers.

joe_doufu on May 9, 2012 at 7:00 PM

“How so?”

Because civil unions are granted on the state level (and thus provide some protections), they do not provide any of the more than 1,100 federal protections and advantages that straight couples can receive — including economic ones. Furthermore, if a gay couple wants/has to move, because their protection has been granted on the state level, there is no guarantee it will be honored wherever they end up.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:01 PM

In terms of economic and social benefits granted by law, civil unions and marriages are very, very unequal. So this isn’t just an argument over the word ‘marriage,’ there are real world implications here.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 6:48 PM

The implications of the benefits to the partners is not nearly as big as the implications to society of who bears the burden of raising the next generation.

pedestrian on May 9, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Your argument is purely definitional as it rests on your definition of “marriage.”

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 6:56 PM

I’m referring to the actual thing, which was until a few years ago understood by everyone to be the referent of the word “marriage”. Liberal efforts to redefine the word don’t change the thing referred to. Call it “transmogrification” instead of marriage if you want… the fact remains that a gay man can transmogrify with a woman in any state. You want to give two gay men the privileges accorded to transmogrification win what they’re doing instead is discombobulating.

joe_doufu on May 9, 2012 at 7:03 PM

joe_dofu, perhaps you’ve already read this?:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:03 PM

…they do not provide any of the more than 1,100 federal protections and advantages that straight couples can receive — including economic ones.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Such
as
?

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Of course such arguments are always dismissed as rhetorical fallacies, but I am yet to hear a cogent explanation for why, if same-sex marriage is no threat to marriage in general and the culture specifically, why not polygamy? What’s the difference? When it comes to raising healthy children, or forming stable unions, or maintaining cultural bedrocks, what’s the difference between gay marriages and polygamist marriages? Why don’t defenses of the former also apply to the latter? Anyone?

Rational Thought on May 9, 2012 at 6:07 PM

That is because when you tell the state that they have no interest in regulating who gets married and that denying ANYONE a license is discrimination then that naturally and legally extends to polygamists and incestous couples. Furthermore, incestous couples are banned due to procreation, but how would you ban two brothers from marrying. They don’t procreate so wouldn’t not allowing the sister/brother combination also be a form of discrimination. It is coming, believe me.

melle1228 on May 9, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Furthermore, if a gay couple wants/has to move, because their protection has been granted on the state level, there is no guarantee it will be honored wherever they end up.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:01 PM

We have people who are not permitted to chose the state they live in? Wow. You’d think that’d be on the news or something.

So if I am “forced” to move, what happens to my rights to carry a concealed weapon if I am “forced” to move to say, D.C. (where they don’t permit it, by the way)?

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 7:06 PM

No Barry bamstahhhhhh!!! you da man bammy baby !!!!! love ya barry ol buddy ol pal !!!!!! yahhhhhh!!!!!

pft on 42 PM

cableguy615 on May 9, 2012 at 7:06 PM

The Messiah (a/k/a President Whistle-all-the-Time) and the High Priestess of Health have invaded the obscure childrens sites like this….

http://www.candystand.com/

Check out the ad on the Right hand side of the screen.

PappyD61 on May 9, 2012 at 7:07 PM

“I’m referring to the actual thing, which was until a few years ago understood by everyone to be the referent of the word “marriage”. Liberal efforts to redefine the word don’t change the thing referred to.”

Maybe not to you, but for millions of others it has. It’s pretty clear the direction this country will invariably end up going and it’s funny to see how silly people looking kicking and screaming on the way out.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:07 PM

How so?”

Because civil unions are granted on the state level (and thus provide some protections), they do not provide any of the more than 1,100 federal protections and advantages that straight couples can receive — including economic ones. Furthermore, if a gay couple wants/has to move, because their protection has been granted on the state level, there is no guarantee it will be honored wherever they end up.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:01 PM

So your argument is federal protection of bennies. Again being on a conservatite site, how is this conservative or even small government?

melle1228 on May 9, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Jobs, gas prices, unemployment, debt, recession, depression….the economy.

Everything else is a shiny object.

rickyricardo on May 9, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Even so, if/when the Supreme Court finds a right to same-sex marriage in the Equal Protection Clause

not going to happen and wow..Obama actually told the truth..I’m in total shock right now

I have no doubt that Obama will ‘evolve’ his opinion on the states rights issue if he gets reelected..he will use the power of the federal government to try to force gay marriage on the american people when we clearly don’t want it..yeah yeah, polls don’t mean crap, votes do and voters reject it time and time again

sadsushi on May 9, 2012 at 7:10 PM

“We have people who are not permitted to chose the state they live in? Wow. You’d think that’d be on the news or something.

So if I am “forced” to move, what happens to my rights to carry a concealed weapon if I am “forced” to move to say, D.C. (where they don’t permit it, by the way)?”

I was referring to mainly economic circumstances. i.e losing a job, being relocated for work, getting a new job. Point is, these are considerations a hetero couple never has to make.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:10 PM

I was referring to mainly economic circumstances. i.e losing a job, being relocated for work, getting a new job. Point is, these are considerations a hetero couple never has to make.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:10 PM

What’s the answer to my predicament though?

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Mittens is toast in November!

Pragmatic on May 9, 2012 at 7:12 PM

melle1228,

Are you telling me you oppose hetero marriages being federally protected, as they are now? I simply want gay couples to be treated equally.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Mittens is toast in November!

Pragmatic on May 9, 2012 at 7:12 PM

You forgot to click your heals together three times.

Kataklysmic on May 9, 2012 at 7:14 PM

*heels

Kataklysmic on May 9, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Now it time to pivot to the economy!

Electricity prices are up 36% on national average per kilowatt hour and water consumption pricing is up 27% nationally too. Obama lied and the nation died. This is nothing more than a middle class tax increase compliments of Obama’s EPA.

jjnco73 on May 9, 2012 at 7:17 PM

I simply want gay couples to be treated equally.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Show me where marriage falls under the federal government’s purview in the US Constitution and we can agree. (While you’re looking for that, can you see if you can find abortion and health care too? That’d be swell, thanks!)

I’ll not hold my breath while you look.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Obama’s trying to prime his soon-to-be Talk Show audience to compete with Ellen and Oprah and The View. You know, his next gig for 2013 after he’s out of the White House.

I’m betting he and the wife have already lined-up a routine with a network ( guess) and producers at the ready for 2013. So he’s working on those audience tallies now.

Lourdes on May 9, 2012 at 7:20 PM

I expected nothing less after this story!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/09/federal-inmate-makes-strong-showing-against-obama-in-west-virginia-primary/
Of course he is going to court the homo vote, he is in deep doodoo.

ColdWarrior57 on May 9, 2012 at 7:20 PM

You should all denounce yourselves

Tony Soprano on May 9, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7