Support NeoGAF

[Mumei]

He even managed to call him a bigot, once more. You can't make this shit up. His brain must be having a meltdown right about now.

He seems perfectly fine.

And for what it is worth, he did not call Obama a bigot. He condemned him for supporting bigotry; it is perfectly possible (and Obama is hardly the only politician to have done so) to have supported a bigoted position out of political cowardice / expediency and not out of conviction. And I would agree that up till this point, he was supporting bigotry. If we're going to say that Gaffers who disagree with gay marriage are bigoted, then when he was in opposition to gay marriage, how could he not be supporting a bigoted position?

And even though I prefer Obama's position now, I don't really have a problem understanding the contempt of making this decision when it becomes easy.

(And now I see he's responded himself, but oh well.)

Hahhaahahaha.

... That's what he wrote. Re-read it.

 

[Binabik15]

Went on a Sunday talking heads show and said he was pro gay marriage.

A lot of speculation of how this came about.

I should use that pic as an avatar again.

Since a lot of states showed that people are still too spiteful (crazy? petty? misguided?) to play nice it's good that Obama felt pressured to do this or thought the Camel's back was broken and he had to do something.

 

[PhoenixDark]

You fail at reading. I called the position he supported (civil unions) bigotry. I did not say the man is a bigot.

lmao

 

[Gaborn]

Hahhaahahaha.

Your inability to read standard English isn't particularly amusing.

 

[Evlar]

Props. But, does he assume he's going to lose? He seems to be constructing his legacy now, instead of aiming for a second term.

I don't know... if we're just going to discuss this in terms of cold-blooded politics, most everyone has to know this is a "generational" issue and part of ye olde "culture wars", which usually swing toward the liberal positions in the long run. This means that making a strong stand in favor of gay rights will probably have benefits for the party over a long term, if the broad sweep of American history is a guide. If Republicans continue to double down and keep betting on the losing side they'll lose generations of voters motivated by this issue... much as Johnson's embrace of the civil rights movement along with Republican co-option of the counter-movement has given Democrats a reliable constituency.

But in the short term it certainly seems to distract from other messages that I would be critical to his re-election. So from that point of view it looks like electoral poison.

 

[J10]

On the contrary, I think they both have had this agreement on the issue, but wanted to "test the waters" with Biden's announcement.

This, this, and this. Biden was the feeler.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

True, but...I just see it as Republicans alienating people with whom they already have a rocky history, i.e. the sort of woman, minority, or homosexual who is naturally inclined to vote Republican is going to vote Republican anyway. I just don't see many Independents in the above groups being swayed to vote Republican. I could be wrong.

Lets say you're shopping for groceries and the only thing you really care about is price and quality. But the store with the best prices and quality also has a thing where all the employees randomly drop to the ground at the same time and start speaking in tongues for a few minutes. Would you ever shop there again?

Independents will be apprehensive about supporting a party that is radicalised on every single social issue. Whether or not they even care about those issues.

 

[reilo]

He seems perfectly fine.

And for what it is worth, he did not call Obama a bigot. He condemned him for supporting bigotry; it is perfectly possible (and Obama is hardly the only politician to have done so) to have supported a bigoted position out of political cowardice / expediency and not out of conviction. And I would agree that up till this point, he was supporting bigotry. If we're going to say that Gaffers who disagree with gay marriage are bigoted, then when he was in opposition to gay marriage, how could he not be supporting a bigoted position?

And even though I prefer Obama's position now, I don't really have a problem understanding the contempt of making this decision when it becomes easy.

(And now I see he's responded himself, but oh well.)

He chose that phrase very carefully. If he didn't want to conjure up the image of Obama as a bigot, then he wouldn't have used the term "bigoted policies" (or any variation thereof).

For the life of me, I can't remember him using the same phrase to characterize Ron Paul's position on the issue. It's all heavy-handed, and really, just plain bullshit on Gaborn's part.

 

[Mumei]

This is ridiculous.

"I just really have contempt for someone who publicly supported bigotry until that was a poisonous enough position he could repudiate it."

He did not say that Obama was a bigot. He said that he pubicly supported bigotry until he could repudiate it. This suggests what Gaborn's has always been: That Obama personally has always supported marriage equality, but that he lacked the balls to say it while running in 2008, so he pretended that he'd never said what he originally said in 1996.

You guys are being completely ridiculous and unfair to him right now.

 

[Cipherr]

There is no way to convince Gaborn. I mean he supports Paul for President when Paul is 100% against gay marriage. I don't get why people are still in shock at his absurd view points. I know it's a dirty word of sorts but Gaborn is the textbook example of a certain character of Harriet Beecher Stowe's when it comes to gay rights and it has been the case for many years but what are you going to do?

This is a GREAT day. Let Gaborn stew in his bitterness, no need to get down on his level.

Everybody freaking quotes him. You can't even escape it by having him on ignore. Its absolutely infuriating.

I still don't like the argument. It's a day late only if his support yesterday closed the supposed 20 point gap.

That and they shot down civil unions too. Something he supported, so again, thats a really weak way to downplay something nice.

 

[Gaborn]

He chose that phrase very carefully. If he didn't want to conjure up the image of Obama as a bigot, then he wouldn't have used the term "bigoted policies" (or any variation thereof).

For the life of me, I can't remember him using the same phrase to characterize Ron Paul's position on the issue. It's all heavy-handed, and really, just plain bullshit on Gaborn's part.

I've said Ron Paul's position on marriage is bigoted. (although in fairness to Paul he's said in the last few years he supports the right of gays to marry even though he personally disapproves of the practice).

 

[Evlar]

This is ridiculous.

"I just really have contempt for someone who publicly supported bigotry until that was a poisonous enough position he could repudiate it."

He did not say that Obama was a bigot. He said that he pubicly supported bigotry until he could repudiate it. This suggests what Gaborn's has always been: That Obama personally has always supported marriage equality, but that he lacked the balls to say it while running in 2008, so he pretended that he'd never said what he originally said in 1996.

You guys are being completely ridiculous and unfair to him right now.

It's just ridiculously untrue. Gaborn doesn't have contempt for "someone who publicly supported bigotry until that was a poisonous enough position he could repudiate it." His beef with Obama isn't - and never has been - his opinion on gay rights.

 

[v1oz]

What was wrong with Civil Unions? It's practically the same thing as marriage. And awards you the same rights.

 

[reilo]

Just earlier today, Gaborn said exactly this:

TOTALLY agree. If you're a bigot you should have no problem with people knowing it. If you don't want people to find out that you're a bigot then perhaps you shouldn't do bigoted things.

And here is a gem from 2010:

Which is the same as saying he supports discriminating against gays because they're gay. That's the DEFINITION of bigotry. He wants to set up a system wholly parallel to marriage to deny us the right to marry. That makes him a bigot. Sorry, but it does.

Sounds like Gaborn's opinion on Obama has evolved.

But yes, I am the "ridiculous" one.

 

[Ziltoid]

I will continue to fight to make sure that the cultural elites don’t further undermine the institution that gives the best opportunity for healthy, happy children and a just and prosperous society.

That's right Rick, tell those children with gay parents what unhealthy and unhappy little sinners they are.

I never really got this argument. There's thousands of orphans in the world and there's not enough heterosexual couples to adopt them all. But I guess it's better to rot in an orphanage than having two parents of the same gender that loves you.

Diguisting.

 

[Gaborn]

It's just ridiculously untrue. Gaborn doesn't have contempt for "someone who publicly supported bigotry until that was a poisonous enough position he could repudiate it." His beef with Obama isn't - and never has been - his opinion on gay rights.

In whole, certainly not. In part? Yes, that is certainly something that annoys me about him.

 

[mannerbot]

What was wrong with Civil Unions? It's practically the same thing as marriage. And awards you the same rights.

What's wrong with this? It's practically the same.

 

[Femmeworth]

About damn time.

 

[Kusagari]

Separate but equal isn't the same.

 

[B-Dex]

What was wrong with Civil Unions? It's practically the same thing as marriage. And awards you the same rights.

"Sure you can come have a nice meal at our restaurant but since you're a junior you have to go sit on the jr side of the dinning room. Don't want you accidentally thinking you're just like the regular members now do we."

 

[kehs]

What was wrong with Civil Unions? It's practically the same thing as marriage. And awards you the same rights.

On the surface it's a step in the right direction.

Separate but Equal, is a disingenuous platitude though.

 

[Gaborn]

Just earlier today, Gaborn said exactly this:

*quotes me referring to someone who specifically votes to ban gay marriage*

And here is a gem from 2010:



Sounds like Gaborn's opinion on Obama has evolved.

But yes, I am the "ridiculous" one.

Second quote I'll grant you, a person who supports bigoted policies is a bigot while they support those policies. In 2010... I would have to describe him as a bigot in regards to gay rights.

 

[reilo]

Second quote I'll grant you, a person who supports bigoted policies is a bigot while they support those policies. In 2010... I would have to describe him as a bigot in regards to gay rights.

I rest my case.

"Too little, too late", am I right?

 

[Gaborn]

I rest my case.

"Too little, too late", am I right?

Are you saying his position in 2010 was NOT bigoted?

 

[Devolution]

This is ridiculous.

"I just really have contempt for someone who publicly supported bigotry until that was a poisonous enough position he could repudiate it."

He did not say that Obama was a bigot. He said that he pubicly supported bigotry until he could repudiate it. This suggests what Gaborn's has always been: That Obama personally has always supported marriage equality, but that he lacked the balls to say it while running in 2008, so he pretended that he'd never said what he originally said in 1996.

You guys are being completely ridiculous and unfair to him right now.

I don't get it, why are people coming to the ferocious defense of Obama when he effectively floundered on the issue? And we were met with scores of states voting on it? The precedent for retaining and granting rights for a discriminated minority are already there. It pisses me off that he was so cowardly for years.

 

[shintoki]

About damn time.

Double up on this. It took a while, but its wonderful news.

 

[v1oz]

What's wrong with this? It's practically the same.

The two sinks are not of the same quality - so there is a practical difference.

The only difference between Civil Unions and Marriage is in the name. But you have the same legal rights and protections so its not comparable to racial segregation. In fact it's nothing to do with race at all.

So it's not like gay couples will be made to sit on different seats on buses or planes. They will sit together with straight couples.

 

[reilo]

Are you saying his position in 2010 was NOT bigoted?

I called you out for proclaiming Obama was a bigot, not for you proclaiming that his issues are. And you still are chugging along with that train.

It's okay to be wrong, it happens.

 

[Devolution]

The two sinks are not of the same quality - so there is a practical difference.

The only difference between Civil Unions and Marriage is in the name. But you have the same legal rights and protections so its not comparable to segregation.

Marriage is not a right of religious institutions it's a secular institution that religious bigots think they have a right to keep for themselves.

 

[Koomaster]

Guess I should be happy that the lives of gay people are just a political game of chess. It's funny how many people are just giving Obama a pass because obviously he's always felt this way and had to hide his feelings on the issue because that's the way the game is played. Because all we have is fucking time to play the waiting game while politicians decide when is the perfect time to give us our dignity. Meanwhile I guess we just suffer the depression that the nation we live in thinks we are less than human.

 

[cousins]

The two sinks are not of the same quality - so there is a practical difference.

The only difference between Civil Unions and Marriage is in the name. But you have the same legal rights and protections so its not comparable to segregation.

seperate but equal is wrong on moral grounds.

 

[Gaborn]

The two sinks are not of the same quality - so there is a practical difference.

The only difference between Civil Unions and Marriage is in the name. But you have the same legal rights and protections so its not comparable to segregation.

The mere fact that a second institution is created for the sole purpose of denying gay couples marriage identifies the inherent inequality.

 

[BFIB]

I don't get it, why are people coming to the ferocious defense of Obama when he effectively floundered on the issue? And we were met with scores of states voting on it? The precedent for retaining and granting rights for a discriminated minority are already there. It pisses me off that he was so cowardly for years.

It just shows what one will do during an election year. And to think, we are just getting started.

Still, glad to see him finally make a hard stance.

 

[Kusagari]

The two sinks are not of the same quality - so there is a practical difference.

The only difference between Civil Unions and Marriage is in the name. But you have the same legal rights and protections so its not comparable to racial segregation. In fact it's nothing to do with race at all.

The name is enough. It creates a clear distinction between gays and straights.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

The only difference between Civil Unions and Marriage is in the name. But you have the same legal rights and protections so its not comparable to racial segregation. In fact it's nothing to do with race at all.

States aren't required to recognize Civil Unions authorized in other states. This was a cornerstone of DOMA.

 

[eBay Huckster]

What the heck led to the movement over the last year?

most likely a slightly different sample than in 2011

 

[Gaborn]

I called you out for proclaiming Obama was a bigot, not for you proclaiming that his issues are. And you still are chugging along with that train.

It's okay to be wrong, it happens.

Are you saying his position in 2010 was NOT bigoted, yes or no?

 

[Boogie]

Gaborn, what sort of Executive Order would you like Obama to sign on the subject of Gay Marriage?

 

[Big Baybee]

Guess I should be happy that the lives of gay people are just a political game of chess. It's funny how many people are just giving Obama a pass because obviously he's always felt this way and had to hide his feelings on the issue because that's the way the game is played. Because all we have is fucking time to play the waiting game while politicians decide when is the perfect time to give us our dignity. Meanwhile I guess we just suffer the depression that the nation we live in thinks we are less than human.

Barack Obama is the first sitting president to openly support gay marriage. He is fighting for gay rights and has in the past. If you can't be happy about this, then I just don't know what to say. Give the man credit.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The mere fact that a second institution is created for the sole purpose of denying gay couples marriage identifies the inherent inequality.

Thank god Obama supports gay marriage then, right? Oh wait

 

[Kitschkraft]

The mere fact that a second institution is created for the sole purpose of denying gay couples marriage identifies the inherent inequality.

Yup.

Also, as far as them being "practically the same"....symbolism still matters.

 

[giga]

The two sinks are not of the same quality - so there is a practical difference.

The only difference between Civil Unions and Marriage is in the name. But you have the same legal rights and protections so its not comparable to racial segregation. In fact it's nothing to do with race at all.

Here you go bubba. You don't have a problem with this?

 

[Mumei]

The two sinks are not of the same quality - so there is a practical difference.

The only difference between Civil Unions and Marriage is in the name. But you have the same legal rights and protections so its not comparable to racial segregation. In fact it's nothing to do with race at all.

What about "separate but equal is inherently unequal" do you have trouble with? The segregation of institutions (in the case of marriage / civil unions) is in and of itself sufficient to call it unequal.

 

[Futureman]

Awesome. Is there any indication if he wins that he'll make this a priority for this 2nd term?

I will DEF be voting for Obama in November now. I was probably either not going to vote or vote for him anyways, but this cements it. I don't buy this as him losing the election... I could see this energizing the base.

 

[eBay Huckster]

The only difference between Civil Unions and Marriage is in the name. But you have the same legal rights and protections so its not comparable to racial segregation.

I can't remember where I read it but I'm fairly sure there are several legal rights granted with marriages that still aren't granted with civil unions; there's definitely more of a difference in a legal sense than just the name of the binding.

 

[Arment]

You have to take small steps to get into the light.

Nothing happens overnight.

 

[reilo]

Are you saying his position in 2010 was NOT bigoted, yes or no?

Sure. Is Ron Paul a bigot? After all, he still doesn't support gay marriage or civil unions. Yes or no?

Are you still going to vote for Ron Paul, yes or no?

 

[Devolution]

I can't remember where I read it but I'm fairly sure there are several legal rights granted with marriages that still aren't granted with civil unions.

It wouldn't even matter if they were 100% equal in rights. There doesn't need to another term for the same institution.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

What's wrong with this? It's practically the same.

That is not exactly the same thing though as most gay people don't get any water fountains at all.

My question is what can Obama even do to advance gay marriage? Isn't that up to the states?

 

[Gaborn]

Gaborn, what sort of Executive Order would you like Obama to sign on the subject of Gay Marriage?

I would like him to sign an executive order to treat all legally married foreign same sex partners seeking a green card exactly the same as straight couples. I believe to that extent he would have the authority to act because the enforcement of laws is at the executive branch's discretion and it would just be a matter of providing the same expedited process to get legal status for a foreign spouse.