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 4 5 6 7

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

Our American law system had always traditionally had marriage geared towards procreation. Our marriage laws are based in the English Common law. English Common law recognized that heterosexuals would legally pair off INDEPENDENT of the state via children. THe state got involved to make sure it was not responsible and the fathers were. That is why a father is automatically assumed to be “the father” within a marriage. They also wanted to streamline inheritance via children. In 60’s the state set out to destroy traditional marriage with no-fault divorce. People who wanted this knew that if the wasn’t a traditional family struction; that “new family” was more likely to need the state. Homosexuals can NEVER naturally legally link to each other. They will always require the state. Even if they “had children” together they require the state to get involved to sort out the donor rights. Infertile/childless couples are a fact of life, but many don’t know this when they get married- and many childless couples change their mind. Thus it is in the state interest to sanction their union in case they have children. Children are the ONLY state interest as they are future taxpayers.

melle1228 on May 9, 2012 at 7:22 PM

He’s already in a geh marriage. What’s the big deal?

Key West Reader on May 9, 2012 at 7:23 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

The only protection married couples should received is one that benefits their children-future taxpayers, business owners etc.

melle1228 on May 9, 2012 at 7:23 PM

libfreeordie, what is your take on Obama’s states rights stance? Do you agree with AP that he will flip on that eventually as well? I think it is somewhat amusing that a man of mixed race who otherwise supports suvch marriages would say such a thing given the history of civil rights.

Oh, and I agree with you that this is unlikely to hurt black turnout. Unfortunately, the Dem lock on that community will continue. The numbers will be lower because this election lacks the historic nature of the last one, but gay marriage won’t be to blame.

McDuck on May 9, 2012 at 7:24 PM

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?

I caught that immediately. America’s Armed Forces are not nor have they ever been the personal servants of the President. They serve their nation not some jug-eared Kenyan. It is a double affront that the bastard decided to make the comment during Armed Forces week.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2012 at 7:24 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

You suffer from two enormous philosophical errors here. First, you seem to actually believe that changing the meaning of a word changes the thing referred to. As if you just start calling your cat a dog, within a few short years it will become a loyal canine companion and adept at fetching tennis balls. I submit to you that a cat is a cat, not a dog, regardless of what you call it. Deliberately using the word “dog” to mean “cat” is not a debate-winning answer to a policy question, it is a political tactic to make discussion of the issue impossible. It is characteristic of the Left to use language as a cynical weapon.

Second failing is the assumption that all civilizations are moving “invariably” in a certain direction that just happens to correspond to the future that you would prefer. A casual study of history would cure you of this error. Human societies change in all kinds of ways, and there is no “invariable” future direction. Technology maybe moves in a predictable trajectory, but not society. Then again, in 2012 we are shutting down nuclear reactors and building windmills all over the place.

joe_doufu on May 9, 2012 at 7:25 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

Could you imagine that? A talk show where teh won interviews himself every day.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 7:25 PM

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

Our American law system had always traditionally had marriage geared towards procreation. Our marriage laws are based in the English Common law. English Common law recognized that heterosexuals would legally pair off INDEPENDENT of the state via children. THe state got involved to make sure it was not responsible and the fathers were. That is why a father is automatically assumed to be “the father” within a marriage. They also wanted to streamline inheritance via children. In 60’s the state set out to destroy traditional marriage with no-fault divorce. People who wanted this knew that if the wasn’t a traditional family struction; that “new family” was more likely to need the state. Homosexuals can NEVER naturally legally link to each other. They will always require the state. Even if they “had children” together they require the state to get involved to sort out the donor rights. Infertile/childless couples are a fact of life, but many don’t know this when they get married- and many childless couples change their mind. Thus it is in the state interest to sanction their union in case they have children. Children are the ONLY state interest as they are future taxpayers.

melle1228 on May 9, 2012 at 7:22 PM

I also forgot to mention that there is a reason that people can divorce/annul due to impotency. This isn’t because the state cares about your sex life. It is because the state recognizes that marriage’s natural progression is children.

melle1228 on May 9, 2012 at 7:25 PM

CycloneCDB,

The Defense of Marriage Act? I never mentioned anything about “marriage” being in the constitution. However, that doesn’t mean the federal government hasn’t played a role in defining/protecting and establishing benefits for married couples — it clearly has.

And I’m actually pro-life, and against Obama Care :)

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:26 PM

I don’t care that he says he supports gay marriage. As has been mentioned, he still puts all legislation up to individual states. Fine. But, to casually say that our military is fighting on HIS behalf?! Now that pisses me off!

Xyz22 on May 9, 2012 at 7:28 PM

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
Our American law system had always traditionally had marriage geared towards procreation. Our marriage laws are based in the English Common law. English Common law recognized that heterosexuals would legally pair off INDEPENDENT of the state via children. THe state got involved to make sure it was not responsible and the fathers were. That is why a father is automatically assumed to be “the father” within a marriage. They also wanted to streamline inheritance via children. In 60’s the state set out to destroy traditional marriage with no-fault divorce. People who wanted this knew that if the wasn’t a traditional family struction; that “new family” was more likely to need the state. Homosexuals can NEVER naturally legally link to each other. They will always require the state. Even if they “had children” together they require the state to get involved to sort out the donor rights. Infertile/childless couples are a fact of life, but many don’t know this when they get married- and many childless couples change their mind. Thus it is in the state interest to sanction their union in case they have children. Children are the ONLY state interest as they are future taxpayers.
melle1228 on May 9, 2012 at 7:22 PM

+1000

gwelf on May 9, 2012 at 7:30 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

You think gays as a group care about future generations? Seriously, it is a very selfish lifestyle.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2012 at 7:30 PM

CycloneCDB,

The Defense of Marriage Act? I never mentioned anything about “marriage” being in the constitution. However, that doesn’t mean the federal government hasn’t played a role in defining/protecting and establishing benefits for married couples — it clearly has.

And I’m actually pro-life, and against Obama Care :)

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Doesn’t matter – marriage appears nowhere in the US Constitution, so where does the federal gov’t even come up with the standing to pass and enact DOMA? Or ANYTHING marriage related?

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 7:30 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.

Dude, you are talking about matters that people who back civil unions would also support for gay couples as a part of civil unions.

The argument isn’t over the word marriage, it’s over what is marriage? A license or a sacrament.

That’s why I said if you truly supported equality, you’d call for an end to the use of the word marriage, since it’s derided from a sacramental tenet of religious orgs. It has no place in State usage.

Once that happens, all the issues you have with Civil Unions would be instantly resolved.

“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.

Your statement was a blanket “all genetic, no choice involved” declaration, and that’s not true, and you knew it.

“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.

Thanks for proving my point. You really do exemplify the studies that shows libs do not truly understand the conservative perspective.

Who do you think is coming out in droves to vote for amendments? Non-practicing Christians who were married before a justice of the peace?

“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

No. It’s called math.

100% of all LGB will not get married.

Of the percent that does, 100% will not stayed married until death.

So if 60% of non-faith based marriages end in divorce, and all LGB advocates want are non-faith based marriage licenses, then around 50% will end in divorce.

Roughly, they will add a 10% hike to divorce rates.

If you need anecdotal proof, go look up the lesbian couples who fought tooth-and-nail for marriage license in New England, and have already gotten divorced.

budfox on May 9, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Notice that Obama speaks about gay marriage in a way that precludes it from being a basic civil or human right – otherwise it wouldn’t be left up to the states.

gwelf on May 9, 2012 at 7:32 PM

This is all calculated to get votes. I don’t know how well it will work, I suspect it might help him in some swing states but hurt him in others. But not that many people are going to base their vote on gay marriage and those that do are already committed leftists.

Romney should just say: “Marriage laws have always been handled by the states and the federal government is already involved in far too many things and it is time to get the federal government out of the business of w,x,y,and z. We need to focus on jobs and the econommy, people are hurting in America and they need companies that can do business without moving to India or China.”

Dollayo on May 9, 2012 at 7:32 PM

And I’m actually pro-life, and against Obama Care :)

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:26 PM

What does that have to do with DOMA?

In reality though, there is a parallel. Abortion is another issue that should be a state issue and not federally protected murder.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Romney should just say: “Marriage laws have always been handled by the states and the federal government is already involved in far too many things and it is time to get the federal government out of the business of w,x,y,and z. We need to focus on jobs and the econommy, people are hurting in America and they need companies that can do business without moving to India or China.”

Dollayo on May 9, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Thanks for the advice, John McCain!
I’m not a Romney supporter (don’t trust him) but even I don’t want to see him embarrass himself with that level of stupidity. When your opponent is committing political suicide, get out of his way and let him do it. Romney would be a fool to follow your plan of (1) minimizing the difference between their positions and (2) changing the subject.

joe_doufu on May 9, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Joe_doufou,

“First, you seem to actually believe that changing the meaning of a word changes the thing referred to. As if you just start calling your cat a dog, within a few short years it will become a loyal canine companion and adept at fetching tennis balls.”

Your logic is very flawed. A dog is an animal. Regardless of what societies feelings and beliefs are regarding dogs, a “dog” will always be a “dog.” However, “marriage” is a social institution. Ask yourself, what exactly is a social institution? It is an institution that a society defines and establishes for a certain purpose. Consequently, if a society begins to change – be it culturally, socially, politically, or economically – it makes sense that a given social institution’s purpose and definition could also begin to change. You would submit to me that a given social institution (marriage in this case) can NEVER change regardless of societal changes? That makes no sense. Institutions are merely the products of their ever changing societies. For this point (I’ll get to your next one shortly), a society doesn’t have to be moving in any particular direction for an institution to change. It merely has to change, which it clearly has and clearly will continue to. Therefore, institutions (and the definitions you choose ascribe to them) are absolutely not static and can change.

Your second point is devoid of both the reality of today and of what I’ve said previously. I never made any grand statements regarding the prospects of gay marriage. Rather, I’ve merely been stating the trends are clear. More and more Americans have become comfortable with the idea gay marriage over time. And as demographic shifts begin to occur (elderly, more conservative segments of the population dying) this trend is not likely to reverse.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:41 PM

This is a distraction to a wedege issue. Obama must be really hurting in the polls.

Dollayo on May 9, 2012 at 7:41 PM

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.

Let’s put this in context. It takes “a brand” of liberals, (and a few certain conservatives), to accept the homosexual lifestyle as the same as a marriage between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. And it IS still under 10% of the total U.S. population.

Rovin on May 9, 2012 at 7:43 PM

As much as I despise the weaselly way he’s treated the issue over the last 4 years, this is a historic announcement. Maybe even the turning point in winning the last major civil rights battle in America. So thank you President Obama, for at long last showing a little leadership.

RightOFLeft on May 9, 2012 at 7:43 PM

This is all calculated to get votes. I don’t know how well it will work, I suspect it might help him in some swing states but hurt him in others.

Dollayo on May 9, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Of course this is all about keeping the gay bloc from becoming swing states. This sudden evolution started with a planned riff by Biden that was intended to essentially tell the gays that Obama had their backs and would deliver a pro-sodomy agenda if re-elected. Because of various factors, it only created a firestorm that backed Obama into a corner. Hence the sudden conversion to being in favor or gay “marriage.” It was a calculated position figuring that he had more to gain by coming out now than letting the matter lie.

But it won’t work the way Obama hopes. Gay marriage cuts across political lines. He lost conservative Democrats today even if he shored his support up among the gays. He may have even gained some Republicans but I sincerely doubt it. Nobody except the gay bloc are single issue voters on legitimizing sodomy within society. And I don’t think there are even that many homosexuals who are single issue voters on the matter.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2012 at 7:44 PM

“So if 60% of non-faith based marriages end in divorce, and all LGB advocates want are non-faith based marriage licenses, then around 50% will end in divorce.

Roughly, they will add a 10% hike to divorce rates.”

Not exactly as the # of gay couples is far less than the # of hetero couples. So 60% of a much smaller number would not add 10%.

Also, as a conservative, I understand your points well; I just disagree with them.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:46 PM

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:41 PM

I’ll ask again … how can you equate a heterosexual sexual union, which is based in biology, and is the basis for marriage, with a homosexual sexual union, which is essentially, at best, mutual masturbation?

Paul-Cincy on May 9, 2012 at 7:46 PM

As I just said in the other gay marriage related post on hotair: In an ad, ostensibly attack O as a flipflopper on this issue. The real or more potent attack will be on his gay marriage position. Gold mine!

anotherJoe on May 9, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Rather, I’ve merely been stating the trends are clear. More and more Americans have become comfortable with the idea gay marriage over time. And as demographic shifts begin to occur (elderly, more conservative segments of the population dying) this trend is not likely to reverse.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:41 PM

The “trends” may be crystal clear to you stucky, but not to multi-millions who still see the lifestyle as a disgusting perversion of humanity.

Rovin on May 9, 2012 at 7:48 PM

RightOFLeft on May 9, 2012 at 7:43 PM

You clearly don’t appreciate those who really led civil rights battles if you think that this issue comes even close to the civil rights leaders who sought equality in society. We are essentially quibbling over the term “marriage” and workplace benefits. It is hardly the March on Selma or giving women the right to vote.

But as I posted before, the gay community (as a group) is a very selfish lifestyle.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2012 at 7:48 PM

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?

I caught that, too. It was jarring.

But then I thought of all those soldiers, sailors, marines and airman I saw wearing those super large Obama logo shoulder patches. Didn’t you see them?

Ira on May 9, 2012 at 7:49 PM

When your opponent is committing political suicide, get out of his way and let him do it. Romney would be a fool to follow your plan of (1) minimizing the difference between their positions and (2) changing the subject.

joe_doufu on May 9, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Romney simply saying that marriage was between a man and woman was the right response to what is clearly Team Obama desperately seeking to shore up support among gays who increasingly blame him for not standing up for “their issue.” That is the problem with divisive partisan attacks where you pit one group against another. Obama made specific if tacit promises to the sodomites. He hasn’t delivered.

I do expect, however, that this sudden evolution will now mean more expense to the taxpayer as he decides to change the benefits for gay federal employees.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2012 at 7:53 PM

As much as I despise the weaselly way he’s treated the issue over the last 4 years, this is a historic announcement. Maybe even the turning point in winning the last major civil rights battle in America. So thank you President Obama, for at long last showing a little leadership.
RightOFLeft on May 9, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Leadership? If as you say gay marriage is a civil right then why is it up to the states as Obama claims. Or is he going to evolve more?

gwelf on May 9, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Just because it doesn’t correct the same magnitude of injustice as Jim Crow or the disenfranchisement of women doesn’t mean it’s not important.

Gays don’t live any more of a selfish lifestyle than anyone who wants to love and be loved (i.e. the whole human race).

RightOFLeft on May 9, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Maybe even the turning point in winning the last major civil rights battle in America. So thank you President Obama, for at long last showing a little leadership.

RightOFLeft on May 9, 2012 at 7:43 PM

LMAO

I don’t know what’s funnier, calling this a “major civil rights battle,” or assuming it’ll be the last cynical victimization push for more Democrat votes.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 9, 2012 at 7:57 PM

One thing is for sure: Obama’s base is desperate for him to excite them.

gwelf on May 9, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Leadership? If as you say gay marriage is a civil right then why is it up to the states as Obama claims. Or is he going to evolve more?

gwelf on May 9, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Obama is wrong about it being left to the states. Hence “a little” leadership. It would be nice if Obama evolved more on the issue, but I’m hopeful that the electorate will evolve first.

RightOFLeft on May 9, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Just because it doesn’t correct the same magnitude of injustice as Jim Crow or the disenfranchisement of women doesn’t mean it’s not important.

Gays don’t live any more of a selfish lifestyle than anyone who wants to love and be loved (i.e. the whole human race).

RightOFLeft on May 9, 2012 at 7:56 PM

In the same way that both the Grand Canyon and the pothole in my driveway are “major holes,” then yes, ‘Marriage Equality’ is just like repealing Jim Crow laws.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 9, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Obama changed his position because of his daughters, and Michelle, and gay couples he knows? Is this a more substantive reason for action than Hinckley shooting Reagan to impress Jodie Foster?

Paul-Cincy on May 9, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Obama is a historic president. He supports gay marriage. And 5 trillion in debt. Wonder which one is more important.

gwelf on May 9, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Gays don’t live any more of a selfish lifestyle than anyone who wants to love and be loved (i.e. the whole human race).

RightOFLeft on May 9, 2012 at 7:56 PM

If your only concern is your own feelings, then you are in fact selfish.

pedestrian on May 9, 2012 at 8:04 PM

In the same way that both the Grand Canyon and the pothole in my driveway are “major holes,” then yes, ‘Marriage Equality’ is just like repealing Jim Crow laws.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 9, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Ok, I’ll try this again since you missed it. It’s not “just like” Jim Crow. Jim Crow was much worse. That doesn’t mean marriage discrimination isn’t bad. Maybe something simpler. Women no vote very bad. Jim crow much, very bad. Gays no marry not good. Am I getting through?

RightOFLeft on May 9, 2012 at 8:06 PM

disenfranchisement of women

RightOFLeft on May 9, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Women are still being disenfranchised, aren’t they? Remember the Lily Ledbetter Act? The GOP’s War on Women?

Better stay in the trenches, RoL. You’ve got lots of civil rights “battles” left to fight, comrade. All in the service of electing caring, paternalistic Democratic politicians, of course.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 9, 2012 at 8:08 PM

That doesn’t mean marriage discrimination isn’t bad.

RightOFLeft on May 9, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Calling it a “major civil rights battle” is an insult to everyone who fought for actual civil rights. Call me when gays are getting chased out of wedding chapels with fire hoses and German shepherds.

Am I getting through?

RightOFLeft on May 9, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Nope, you’re still just a vague, whiny buzzing sound in my ear. Sorry, I guess I don’t have my secret decoder ring set on “inane permanent grievance mongering.”

Don’t worry, though. There’s plenty more faux-oppressed minorities that can be exploited as a cudgel against the GOP. “War on Latinos”? “Trail of Tears Part 2: Electric Boogaloo”?

Good Solid B-Plus on May 9, 2012 at 8:14 PM

On local and statewide elections this could be huge. Every freaking democrat is going to have to respond to the question now. Every future democrat running for president will have to support. Obama changed the landscape and made it that much hard for democrats. They have to own it now.

rubberneck on May 9, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Calling it a “major civil rights battle” is an insult to everyone who fought for actual civil rights. Call me when gays are getting chased out of wedding chapels with fire hoses and German shepherds.

Bullcrap. If you can’t see that two things can both be important without being equally important, you’re just being intentionally obtuse so you can keep your lame talking point.

RightOFLeft on May 9, 2012 at 8:24 PM

I fail to see how the political calculus works in “The One’s” favor. Forget the polls, the media hysteria, and Chris Mathews’ hyperventalations for the moment. Keep an eye on the who gets the most campaign contributions.

diogenes on May 9, 2012 at 8:30 PM

I love how people act like anything that is less extreme than what blacks faced isn’t a big deal. The reality is that this most certainly is a major civil rights battle. The fact that some don’t see that isn’t the least bit surprising though. There are people with narrow vision in every age. This is but the latest step in a chain of struggles against bigotry and oppression.

McDuck on May 9, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Our President’s “new” view on same sex marriage is just the beginning. Check out his “Safe School Czar”, Kevin Jennings. Once you understand what Jennings stands for you will understand what our president stands for.

sigsauer on May 9, 2012 at 8:33 PM

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

Gee…Obama finally came out of the closet on his support of gay marriage. For a second, I thought he was actually going to just tell the truth for a change….but I see he still found something to BS us with. States have a right to decide for themselves he says? Who does he think he’s fooling?

lynncgb on May 9, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Bullcrap. If you can’t see that two things can both be important without being equally important, you’re just being intentionally obtuse so you can keep your lame talking point.

RightOFLeft on May 9, 2012 at 8:24 PM

The only lame talking point is to continue to compare gay marriage to interracial marriage. That’s why black pastors overwhelmingly tell their parishioners to vote down gay marriage. Race has nothing to do with the function of marriage, the gender of the participants does.

Both the gay marriage supporter and the pro-abortion zealot are demonstrably anti-science. The both skipped out on biology.

BKennedy on May 9, 2012 at 8:38 PM

The reality is that this most certainly is a major civil rights battle.

McDuck on May 9, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Just saying it doesn’t make it true.

It’s okay, though. I don’t mind that you continue to belittle the extraordinary strides this country has made on actual matters of civil rights by wailing about the plight of teh gheys.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 9, 2012 at 8:40 PM

And I don’t mind that you continue to act that way. It’s OK, because history will treat your views as they deserve to be treated. No worries.

McDuck on May 9, 2012 at 8:47 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

Begging the state for benefits based solely on your “love” is also indeed a choice.

A choice the vast majority of society does not want to entertain, as you can plainly see by a 100% rejection rate at the ballot box.

Homosexual activists are not looking for equal treatment. They are looking for special treatment. The entire historical reason for state-granted benefits to marriage is precisely because the natural progression of marriage is children. Ever heard of the word “consummate”? It’s a very elegant word for sexual intercourse of the variety that leads to babies.

Homosexuals can’t consummate their marriages. Theirs is a life-denying, barren lust. Do they enjoy it? Yes, I suppose they do. But it isn’t society’s responsibility to elevate that to the same level of marriage. In fact it’s an injustice to elevate the inferior on a pedestal and then claim it is equal to a good that stands where it does on its own.

Do you get it yet? Marriage isn’t about adults, it’s about children.

BKennedy on May 9, 2012 at 8:50 PM

More and more Americans have become comfortable with the idea gay marriage over time. And as demographic shifts begin to occur (elderly, more conservative segments of the population dying) this trend is not likely to reverse.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:41 PM

What trends are you talking about? Yo mean muslim states that went from ‘tolerant” to full on fanatic this past year? Or Russia, which recently voted against any and all homosexual rights/unions and any advertisements for such? Punishable by law.

What news do you follow? Obviously not from this planet. Go to Egypt and proclaim you are gay while standing in Tahrir Square, let’s see how “comfortable” these guys are with gays. You are so full of it…

The only reason USA has “become comfortable” with gay issues in recent times is due to stigma being attached to anyone who dares to speak out against them. Same as being called racist.

And I will once again ask you same question I asked a couple of nights ago in a similar thread: Can you or any other gay centric expert out there produce ONE study, JUST ONE, that links being gay to a genetic cause?

ITS A LIFE STYLE CHOICE. Nothing else.

riddick on May 9, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Gay marriage is so popular that it has been defeated in every popular vote.

Spliff Menendez on May 9, 2012 at 8:52 PM

It’s OK, because history will treat your views as they deserve to be treated. No worries.

McDuck on May 9, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Sure, if Howard Zinn writes the history books.

Better get working on some necromancy, McDuck. Then you can have a whole new victim class to exploit. Zombie Rights is the new cutting edge!

Good Solid B-Plus on May 9, 2012 at 8:58 PM

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

Since the beginning of marriage?

Doesn’t matter – marriage appears nowhere in the US Constitution, so where does the federal gov’t even come up with the standing to pass and enact DOMA? Or ANYTHING marriage related?

CycloneCDB

Since married people will eventually buy something, sell something, or consume something, or use health care, that means marriage falls under the commerce clause, giving the feds the power to regulate marriage…..or anything else they choose to regulate ;)

The reality is that this most certainly is a major civil rights battle. The fact that some don’t see that isn’t the least bit surprising though. There are people with narrow vision in every age. This is but the latest step in a chain of struggles against bigotry and oppression.

McDuck

No, it isn’t, lol. And just because some people imagine it is doesn’t make it so.

xblade on May 9, 2012 at 9:01 PM

So he sullies the Office once more.

Cleombrotus on May 9, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Gays don’t live any more of a selfish lifestyle than anyone who wants to love and be loved (i.e. the whole human race).

RightOFLeft on May 9, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Bull excrement. Are you really suggesting it takes a marriage license for gays to love and be loved? There are an awful lot of unmarried heterosexual couples who experience that without the benefit of a license or legal recognition of a marriage.

For idiots like you to liken this issue to Ghandi’s work is absurd and you are indeed a selfish, self-absorbed human being! Deal with it.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2012 at 9:05 PM

It’s OK, because history will treat your views as they deserve to be treated. No worries.

McDuck on May 9, 2012 at 8:47 PM

It’s more likely that history is going to be hostile to your activists just it’s now hostile to most communists. Arguing for ever more expansive government granted rights and demonizing your opponents with character assassination has been a tactic of the left for at least a century now.

People now see through the self-righteousness of bashing traditional morality to replace it with nothing but the capricious whims of a relative, state-sponsored morality.

If you really want to be asinine about what history will remember, it will remember you and your ilk as the most disgustingly judgmental, self-absorbed nihilists to ever poison the earth.

The final analysis will be that no harm should come to anyone for their sexual practices, but marriage is sacred, special, and deserving of society’s protections. Attempts to demonize marriage supporters will be dismissed, if not outright mocked and ridiculed.

That day is coming soon, and the only difference is that not enough people have yet grown tired of being demonized simply for acknowledging biology, wanting to have public policy based upon it, and continuing to have the accepted societal norms for a growing society that values human life unchanged.

It was never about what people thought about teh gheys, it was always about what they thought about marriage.

BKennedy on May 9, 2012 at 9:08 PM

This is but the latest step in a chain of struggles against bigotry and oppression. in a downward spiral of Western Civilization as politically powerful minority special interest groups seek their own self-indulgent interests over the good of the nation.
McDuck on May 9, 2012 at 8:31 PM

The story of the put-upon and oppressed American homosexual is a myth.

Cleombrotus on May 9, 2012 at 9:09 PM

More and more Americans have become comfortable with the idea gay marriage over time. And as demographic shifts begin to occur (elderly, more conservative segments of the population dying) this trend is not likely to reverse.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Hey, Einstein, can you remind us all what vote took place in North Carolina just YESTERDAY? I know moron liberals have very short and selective memories, but I really hope you can recall YESTERDAY.

So much for your “… become comfortable…” stupidity.

Do you even know what your name is when you get up in the morning (Biden Syndrome) or like everything else in your life you have cheat sheets all over to remind you what your name is and what you need to think today (talking points)?

riddick on May 9, 2012 at 9:09 PM

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

LIAR! We know all about Obama’s ideas of states rights from his actions against Arizona on enforcing Federal immigration law!

dominigan on May 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM

And honestly, I don’t care whether or not he supports “the concept” of states deciding. It’s in the CONSTITUTION that he took an oath of office to support and defend.

dominigan on May 9, 2012 at 9:16 PM

It’s pandering. Obama wants money so he flip-flopped on homosexual marriage.

‘Obama reversal on same sex marriage comes just days after donors threatened to withhold funds’

http://freebeacon.com/gay-for-pay/

sentinelrules on May 9, 2012 at 9:19 PM

More and more Americans have become comfortable with the idea gay marriage over time. And as demographic shifts begin to occur (elderly, more conservative segments of the population dying) this trend is not likely to reverse.

stuckinwisconsin on May 9, 2012 at 7:41 PM

So comfortable that the 30 or so states that have put it up for popular vote watched it be defeated at the ballot box. And not even close in most cases.

If you want to put your boyfriend/girlfriend on your insurance policy, fine. Which is pretty much legal in the vast majority of States via civil unions. But why must you insist on making a huge deal about the religious covenant of marriage?

And please stop calling people who think gay sex is gross bigots. We think a lot of what straight people do is gross also.

Spliff Menendez on May 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Obama is a historic president. He supports gay marriage. And 5 trillion in debt. Wonder which one is more important.

gwelf on May 9, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Show of hands?

Given that gays have only been handed the promise that Obama will attempt to push pro-gay legislation through a Congress who could well be GOP led is hardly anything more than the support we knew he gave this anti-social agenda from his first campaign.

In the meantime Obama is attempting to deflect the real issues of the economy, jobs, and national security.

I don’t care who ate dog and where Romney placed his on a family vacation in 1983. This issue was a snarky comment by Axelrod which Romney’s people effectively dealt with (my first indication that Romney was “in it to win it.”

I don’t care that a slut attending a Georgetown Law has to pay for contraception. Sandra Fluke pays more in student fees each year than the reported $1,000 to keep her from getting pregnant. While I personally think keeping vile human beings like Fluke barren to be priceless, if I was spending that kind of money to get a law degree I would make damned sure there was no unexpected pregnancies. And, of course, the whole issue is absurd because Fluke would abort in a minute so contraception is merely a strawman.

I don’t care about making this election all about legitimizing the gay lifestyle. Gay marriage is only tinkering around the edges with issues of legal recognition and work benefits. This is only the foot in the door to the real agenda of destroying society as we know it.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Conservatives who give in to “civil unions” are suckers.

joe_doufu on May 9, 2012 at 7:00 PM

I believe that is what happened in CA …. which is why NC
wrote it the way they did …

conservative tarheel on May 9, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Gay marriage is so popular that it has been defeated in every popular vote.

Spliff Menendez on May 9, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Including California.

Popular opinion from the left suggests that the only reason for this is all the old people. Younger generations don’t have a problem with sodomy. I disagree.

Historically speaking, cultural standards come and go in waves. The Great Awakening was replaced more religious tolerance. The forebears of the Victorian age were far more joyous. Conversely the sense of debauchery was replaced with the reality of the Great Depression.

I honestly think that we Americans are at the end of one of these swings. I won’t peg it to recognizing homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle choice, America deciding to abandon the Constitution in favor of international law, or listening to the UN.
Whatever, I predict a swing back to the other side after the Obama administration and America’s experimentation with socialism.

Happy Nomad on May 9, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Part of Obama’s statement today about supporting gay marriage “when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf”.
Does this man have no sense of shame? Our service men and women put themselves in harms way for our COUNTRY not to serve the pride and arrogance of one man. He takes all the credit for their successes and says not one word about all of the soldiers who lost their lives on his watch. May God have mercy on our country if he wins another term.

bandutski on May 9, 2012 at 9:41 PM

But AP, what difference does it make, you destroyed Santorum.

Fuquay Steve on May 9, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Obama came out of the closet today to distract from Inmate #Igot40%ofObamasbase, among other embarrassments.

txhsmom on May 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

In 1996 Obama was for gay marriage….in 2004 He was against it….It 2012 he is for it again…What does 2020 bring?

tomas on May 9, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Just that Obama talks out many orifices…

Forewarned.

Electrongod on May 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

…he’ll be married to some guy…

KOOLAID2 on May 9, 2012 at 10:00 PM

In 1996 Obama was for gay marriage….in 2004 He was against it….It 2012 he is for it again…What does 2020 bring?

tomas on May 9, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Just that Obama talks out many orifices…

Forewarned.

Electrongod on May 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

…he’ll be married to some guy…

KOOLAID2 on May 9, 2012 at 10:00 PM
…how did that happen?

KOOLAID2 on May 9, 2012 at 10:04 PM

To say that I am sick to death of this f@#$ would a severe understatement.

Midas on May 9, 2012 at 10:05 PM

KOOLAID2 on May 9, 2012 at 10:04 PM

He’ll marry Gay Bees…Is that soooo wrong?

tomas on May 9, 2012 at 10:07 PM

The reality is that this most certainly is a major civil rights battle.

Actual major civil rights battles, past/present/future, will thank you to quit making ridiculous comparisons and cheapening *them* in the process.

Are you really so shallow and baseless as to make such a comparison?

/rhetorical question mode off

Midas on May 9, 2012 at 10:12 PM

I’ll ask again … how can you equate a heterosexual sexual union, which is based in biology, and is the basis for marriage, with a homosexual sexual union, which is essentially, at best, mutual masturbation?

Paul-Cincy on May 9, 2012 at 7:46 PM

So what should I do? Kick my husband out if he happens to become impotent, because “a heterosexual sexual union” has been the basis for our marriage and that’s not possible any more?

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM

I have a sincere request for those here who believe in gay marriage.

Our country is basically sinking like the Titanic. We are in dire straits. 0bama, AGAIN, is cynically throwing up issues that will NOT prevent the bankruptcy of this nation.

The more we bite – the more we discuss it – he wins.

Watching president discuss CHRIST tonight on the news, amid the economic disaster facing us, was sad.

The gay-marriage issue, while quite important to a lot of people, needs to take a back seat in this election cycle, and I’d like to sincerely request that those who feel strongly about it – on both sides – take a step back and look at our wounded nation – and save the battle for another day.

We have bigger fish to fry in this particular election.

We can’t afford the luxury of letting 0bama submerge us in social issues.

If this election cycle ends up being dominated by divisive social issues about gay marriage, then America deserves to sink beneath the waves.

So I’m asking gays to be team players here, and keep perspective.

We are in deep 0bama.

I’m going to repost this partial list that I posted on another thread:

———————————————

At least 0bama is finally taking public stands, that can’t be taken back.

So, let’s tick off some of them:

Pro: Gay marriage

Anti: The Catholic Church

Pro: Negotiating with the Taliban

Anti: Defending Eastern Europe against Russian aggression

Pro: Releasing terrorists to get another free shot at American soldiers

Anti: Allowing Canadian oil to be shipped efficiently to Texas, to be processed and sold (putting it on trains is incredibly inefficient).

Pro: Mob persecution of “white” Americans

Anti: The coal industry

Pro: Suing states that try to enforce the laws on the books

Anti: Enforcement of illegal immigration laws

Pro: Providing machine guns to Mexican drug cartels

Anti: Allowing Americans to drill in the Gulf

Pro: Unconstitutional wars that bypass Congress

Anti: Passage of a yearly federal budget

Pro: Judicial activism

Anti: Independence of the Supreme Court

Pro: Muslim Brotherhood

Anti: Chinese dissidents

Feel free to continue, I’m sure I’ve missed a few!

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 2:44 PM

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 10:16 PM

When Mrs Romney was asked she just said…ewwwwwww.

tomas on May 9, 2012 at 10:20 PM

THIS NEEDS REPEATING:

“A well regulated gay marriage being necessary to the security of free sex, the right of the people to have one man’s sausage up another man’s wazoo shall not be infringed.”

Archivarix on May 9, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Now if I can somehow post this one on HP.

jpmotu on May 9, 2012 at 10:22 PM

You notice that he took out the monogamy clause from his interview in his fundraising letter. Iwonder who he gets his info from maybe hillary and bill?

rik on May 9, 2012 at 10:26 PM

To say that I am sick to death of this f@#$ would a severe understatement.

Midas on May 9, 2012 at 10:05 PM

I am also. Romney and even our discussions on here and other sites need to speak to the issues that are important. What I’ve seen is we are allowing Obama and his Administration to set the agenda. We need to do that and not continually respond to his agenda.

This is what the alphabet Networks do and even the non-alphabet ones.

As someone said, nothing is won by defense alone. He can’t defend his record and that is what we need to constantly speak to. We don’t win anything getting into the weeds. Rant off now:-)

bluefox on May 9, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Paul-Cincy on May 9, 2012 at 7:46 PM

So what should I do? Kick my husband out if he happens to become impotent, because “a heterosexual sexual union” has been the basis for our marriage and that’s not possible any more?

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM

That would depend on what marriage vows you took. What would you do if he had an accident and couldn’t work? Would you leave him?
What if he had a stroke? Would you leave him? Marriage is a long term committment and you take the rain along with the sunshine. Just my opinion.

bluefox on May 9, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Republicans and others opposed to same-sex marriage are equivalent to those who opposed interracial marriage. Future generations will look back on the bigotry and intolerance displayed by opponents to marriage equality and shudder with distain and pity.

African-Americans should be especially ashamed of their opposition to SSM, having been the subject of marriage discrimination just a few decades ago.

History is on the side of equality and fairness. Let the bigots howl.

chumpThreads on May 9, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Feel free to continue, I’m sure I’ve missed a few!

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 2:44 PM

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Excellent!! Nicely stated. We do indeed need to stay FOCUSED!!!!

Thanks for the reminder. It may need posted on every thread:-)

bluefox on May 9, 2012 at 11:03 PM

So what should I do? Kick my husband out if he happens to become impotent, because “a heterosexual sexual union” has been the basis for our marriage and that’s not possible any more?

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM

What you’re lacking here is intent of the relationship as it concerns state recognition.

The state cannot possibly know if all people that enter into a marriage are fertile. It can however assume broadly that since people enter marriage in their fertile years, there is a compelling state interest to provide an environment allowing them to bear and raise well-adjusted children (read; the next generation of taxpayers) who will not need the benefit of state assistance as they grow up.

The state can know with absolute certainty that homosexual relationships at any age will not produce the next generation of taxpayers, and thus has no compelling reason to offer any benefits. In fact, the state will make more if they tax each person individually.

And that’s just the minimalist secular argument against it. I haven’t even touched on the negative implications for religious and civil liberties, the psychological argument against homosexuality even *being* an identifier worth validating, and general moral concerns.

BKennedy on May 9, 2012 at 11:03 PM

chumpThreads on May 9, 2012 at 11:02 PM

It’s not a racist issue, so don’t go there.

bluefox on May 9, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Republicans and others opposed to same-sex marriage are equivalent to those who opposed interracial marriage. Future generations will look back on the bigotry and intolerance displayed by opponents to marriage equality and shudder with distain and pity.

African-Americans should be especially ashamed of their opposition to SSM, having been the subject of marriage discrimination just a few decades ago.

History is on the side of equality and fairness. Let the bigots howl.

chumpThreads on May 9, 2012 at 11:02 PM

It’s pretty bigoted to declare black people marrying white people and homosexuals marrying each other to be equivalent issues. For one interracial marriages can still consummate. For two homosexuals have never suffered truly institutionalized hostility to things like working and drinking water from a shared fountain.

You’re on the side of inequality if you declare interracial marriage and gay marriage to be issues of similar magnitude. One is basic decency, the other is special pleading.

Go back to your bean counting, chump.

BKennedy on May 9, 2012 at 11:10 PM

For one interracial marriages can still consummate

1) Not if they’re beyond child-bearing years
2) Procreation is irrelevant to the issue of marriage. Otherwise you’d be agitating to keep infertile couples from getting married.

For two homosexuals have never suffered truly institutionalized hostility to things like working and drinking water from a shared fountain.

Throughout history gays have been beaten, tortured and killed simply for being who they are. Civil unions and “partnerships” are nothing more than the marriage equivalent of “separate but equal”.

You’re on the side of inequality if you declare interracial marriage and gay marriage to be issues of similar magnitude. One is basic decency, the other is special pleading.

Wrong. They are both based on equal treatment in a free society. Gays, by definition, have no attraction to those of the opposite sex. Therefore they should have the right to marry a person of the same sex. It’s not complicated.

chumpThreads on May 9, 2012 at 11:21 PM

From NRO today:

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that one out of six of Obama’s bundlers are gay. Clearly, the campaign is hoping that Obama’s decision to back gay marriage will reap in some new donations.

Just in case you wondered why Obama’s view on homosexual marriage “evolved” in such an expedient and timely manner today! These folks recently warned Obama they’d keep their wallets snapped shut if he didn’t snap to it and back gay marriage. Simple as that.

marybel on May 9, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Wrong. They are both based on equal treatment in a free society. Gays, by definition, have no attraction to those of the opposite sex. Therefore they should have the right to marry a person of the same sex. It’s not complicated.

chumpThreads on May 9, 2012 at 11:21 PM

The civil benefits of marriage are not a right at all. In fact there’s no right to marriage to begin with. That is what is not complicated. Right to free association does not mean the right to receive civil benefits for that association. By definition there cannot be an individual right to marriage because marriage is an association of two individuals and the state.

Which means marriage is not an individual right, it is an association defined by society. This is not complicated.

It is you who want to complicate the issue by defining marriage down to a prize the government gives to any two people who show up at the City Clerk’s office. Mariage has a function and purpose, and until you can explain to me your understanding of what that is, I will not allow you to tear it down.

Moreover consummation carries with it the implication of openness to life, not the realization of it. Otherwise every consummation would lead to a child, which it does not. Homosexual anal sex (two becoming one) doesn’t pass the laugh test of consummation, nor does heterosexual anal sex for that matter, or getting a Lewinsky.

You are a deformer, not a reformer. You are an agitator, not a champion. You have no grounds to wrap yourself in the flag of civil rights.

BKennedy on May 9, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7