• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Obama announces support for same-sex marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's nothing bold about doing something when it's safe. Good that he did it, but it's 4 years late. He would have still won in 2008 because the people this statement turned off today were NEVER going to vote for him then or now.

Why are you so sure about that? Independents are stupid, fickle voters who decide the election. I don't think gay marriage would be the biggest issue to them, but it would just be another to influence them.

edit: And I mean this election. You're right about 08. He had such a big lead that it wouldn't have mattered.
 
There's nothing bold about doing something when it's safe. Good that he did it, but it's 4 years late. He would have still won in 2008 because the people this statement turned off today were NEVER going to vote for him then or now.

If you even knew the poll data, you'd know this became a 50/50 issue only until recently. The country, at one point, was 70/30 against. Clinton signed DOMA. This is historical and you're criticizing him for being "too late?" Da fuck?
 
To be honest, it is pretty lame that it took Obama so long to take a stand on gay marriage. Every other president did it after never when in office.
 
Because he's not an obvious troll you can dismiss. He's active in every political thread, and likes to participate in discussions. It makes people think/hope that he'd be receptive to being pointed out his inconsistency and double standards.

But yes, let's drop the Gaborn thing. This thread has too much of it.

Can that be a GAF theory/law now? The more posts Gaborn has in a thread, the probability of him being proven wrong reaches 1.
 
There's nothing bold about doing something when it's safe. Good that he did it, but it's 4 years late. He would have still won in 2008 because the people this statement turned off today were NEVER going to vote for him then or now.

Announcing it after he was elected to his second term would be safe. The issue is still a 50/50 split and could easily cause fickle voters to abandon him.

I'm mad that Obama was obviously for it the entire time and waited this long to admit it, but people saying this is 'safe' are bsing. It's still a risky move that took balls.
 
It's got a downside. This'll polarize the debate along party lines even moreso than it was, and get a lot of 'personal freedom' republicans voting the party line.
 
It's got a downside. This'll polarize the debate along party lines even moreso than it was, and get a lot of 'personal freedom' republicans voting the party line.

Or it will allow other politicians who are also keeping mum on the issue speak out publicly on it. If Obama wins, then it shows that you can be pro gay marriage and win.
 
As many have almost certainly mentioned this here, but I guess it's worth saying it again... It reeks of desperation when you're the Leader of the Free World and you just happen to change your stance on marriage... in an election year.

Barack Obama never means what he says, and never says what he means. This much would be obvious to the casual observer.

You're a very misinformed person.
 
The problem is that Republicans were very ho hum about Romney and we could have expected low turnout in the general election simply because they didn't really care about him. Now the RNC will use this issue to get people to the polls just like they did with the gay marriage bans in the last election. It will work to some extent. I'm hoping that at least the left will become more energized in its support of Obama.
 
So is the general consensus that we don't want this to fuck him over or what?
It won't do a thing to him - not sure why anyone is even calling this a risky move.

The only people it might hurt are Democratic candidates in contested states who now have to battle swarms of social conservatives frantically voting down the party line. Obama threw in a nasty wrench for lots of contenders hoping to be able to focus on the economy this election year.

Still, it should have been done. Fucking 2012 and civil rights are still a political issue.
 
As many have almost certainly mentioned this here, but I guess it's worth saying it again... It reeks of desperation when you're the Leader of the Free World and you just happen to change your stance on marriage... in an election year.

Barack Obama never means what he says, and never says what he means. This much would be obvious to the casual observer.

Well I am glad we have a man of conviction like Mitt Romney to vote for in november.
 
Previously disadvantaged minority group not helping a minority group that currently is disadvantaged.

I'm just going to say it: the disadvantages (marriage vs....other stuff) are in no way comparable.

Olympics and whatnot.

Why? Let him defend bigots while we celebrate a president who stands up for gay rights.

I don't know anything about his position on anything. I was just poking fun at the mistake (which he edited) in his post
 
Another great thing about obama taking an official stance is that it should really have some pull in many of the anti-gay rights black communities
 
I'm just going to say it: the disadvantages (marriage vs....other stuff) are in no way comparable.

Olympics and whatnot.

Like the post you originally quoted said, yes, this is ironic.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/02/coretta_scott_king_on_gay_righ.php

Coretta Scott King said:
"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."

Coretta Scott King said:
"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny...I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."

Coretta Scott King said:
"Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement," she said. "Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."

Coretta Scott King said:
For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law...I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." On another occasion he said, "I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible." Like Martin, I don't believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.
 
The problem is that Republicans were very ho hum about Romney and we could have expected low turnout in the general election simply because they didn't really care about him. Now the RNC will use this issue to get people to the polls just like they did with the gay marriage bans in the last election. It will work to some extent. I'm hoping that at least the left will become more energized in its support of Obama.

The Republicans could have nominated a ham sandwhich and turnout would still be high. I think you're vastly underestimating the the general disdain card carrying conservative Republicans have for Obama. They might not be super excited about Romney, but they are frothing at the mouth to vote against Obama. It's kind of like Bush v. Kerry in reverse. If anything, hopefully this will re-energize the youth vote who helped put Obama into office in 2008 but sat out the 2010 mid-terms.
 
Nate Silver with one of his typically helpful graphs:

7166516408_07da400dae.jpg


A near dearth of data pre-2004, but the trend lines are crystal clear. Compared to even a few years ago, I see little political risk for Obama; his (public) view shifted along with the public.

So he's a hero now? Or is this just supported by the polling numbers?

Yes and yes?
 
did gaborn publicly apologize yet

For what? For having a strong-held opinion?

I can agree to disagree with the guy regarding Bam's stance on gay rights.

Also, @mannerbot, thanks for posting the Coretta Scott King quotes. MLK is one of my heroes, but I had never read these before.
 
Some more confirmation that Biden might've overslept during the last campaign strategy meeting - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...gay_marriage_sooner_than_he_had_planned_.html

Good for Obama, I suppose, but the optics on this are terrible. Dickerson does bring up the odd comparison to 2004, though. Instead of riding this issue to the forefront as Bush did during his reelection campaign, the goal in announcing early was likely an attempt to bury the topic before the convention. Biden just sped it up a few weeks/months.
 
It won't do a thing to him - not sure why anyone is even calling this a risky move.

I don't see why people are so sure of this. While the national approval of gay marriage is split, state level polling is a lot different. And Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada all have constitutional bans on gay marriage.

I agree with Mother Jones on this. We just don't know how it will affect things. Maybe not at all, maybe a decent amount. We'll see.
 
From what I've read and heard separately on NPR, Biden's remarks weren't at the behest of the administration, who appeared to have been taken back by it. I'm sure they had their own timeline when Obama's 'evolution' would arrive in the campaign.

But take a step back for a moment - why would this administration choose to or need Biden to test the waters on an issue like this? Why choose to make it so soon after the NC vote and open yourself up to charges that a more forceful announcement and subsequent WH push could've changed the outcome of that vote?


I have taken a step back. When I said warm the waters, I did not mean test the waters. The way I see it, Biden, and the recent rumblings, were meant to gradually ease the idea that Obama will be coming out in support of gay marriage. This was done for Obama's supporters that do not back same sex marriage (i.e. the majority of the black community). Why would Biden's comments force Obama to make this announcement the day after the NC vote? They could have still waited a bit. In fact, I think the NC vote was the reason why he made the announcement today. To me, it sounds like it is a message to the Gay community to not fret over bullshit like NC, because he has their back.
 
So has Romney come out and officially stated he is against gay marriage?


He sure is going to look like a bigot trying to argue the topic of gay marriage with someone like Obama, regradless of what you think of the subject. Obama is just that good.
 
Nate Silver with one of his typically helpful graphs:

7166516408_07da400dae.jpg


A near dearth of data pre-2004, but the trend lines are crystal clear. Compared to even a few years ago, I see little political risk for Obama; his (public) view shifted along with the public.

But as you well know, the presidential election is not a national election. It is a state-by-state slugfest. So that graph . . .which only shows a noisy 50/50, isn't very useful.

I hope they did the state-by-state polling and made an informed choice on this. They are committed now.
 
Previously disadvantaged minority group not helping a minority group that currently is disadvantaged.

This always bugs me as I never really see gay advocacy groups coming to the defense of African Americans yet they expect and almost try to shame African Americans into supporting them.
 
So has Romney come out and officially stated he is against gay marriage?


He sure is going to look like a bigot trying to argue the topic of gay marriage with someone like Obama, regradless of what you think of the subject. Obama is just that good.

We have never seen the two of them together on stage, playing off each other. Obama is older and more jaded, and Romney has an ideology behind him.
 
The Times They Are a-Changin

"These people who are making a big deal about gay marriage?" Eastwood tells the magazine. "I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of ... Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."- Clint Eastwood
 
Hopefully this helps Obama. It does in my case. I wasn't voting for him, now I am. I may even throw him $100 between now and the election. I'm not even gay but this is one of my fundamental issues I don't budge on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom