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

Obama announces support for same-sex marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow Biden, you've actually done something good! His comments have spurred this on, and it couldn't have been timed better IMO, after the NC bill earlier this week.

Even the slightest deviation from this stance from the Republican side will be spun by the D's as a form of tolerance for bigotry.

Well done Obama, you may have a chance yet.
 
What if a gay couple want to get married in a church, and the church is okay with it?

People are already able to do that. It's the privileges associated civil/legal marriages that are the real issue; specious arguments about the "definition of marriage" are nothing more than a distraction.
 
Wow Biden, you've actually done something good! His comments have spurred this on, and it couldn't have been timed better IMO, after the NC bill earlier this week.

Even the slightest deviation from this stance from the Republican side will be spun by the D's as a form of tolerance for bigotry.

Well done Obama, you may have a chance yet.

The timing is terrible. If anything, he should have stated his position BEFORE the NC vote. Not to mention that this is an election year. I'm pretty sure Obama has lost NC (a swing state), as a result. Romney is going to spin this as a, "I have firmly been against gay marriage from the start whereas President Obama twiddled his thumbs on the issue until his vice president made a stance."
 
The timing is terrible. If anything, he should have stated his position BEFORE the NC vote. Not to mention that this is an election year. I'm pretty sure Obama has lost NC (a swing state), as a result. Romney is going to spin this as a, "I have firmly been against gay marriage from the start whereas President Obama twiddled his thumbs on the issue until his vice president made a stance."

"I've always been a bigot, Obama only pretended to be one temporarily to get your votes."
 
Yep.

But like zmoney pointed out, Christians throw out the Old Testament in favor of the new one. Still, the New Testament does not condone homosexuality, and why homosexuals want to be a part of a belief system that is prejudice towards them is baffling.

To me , the terms Homosexual and Christian do not go together.

To you. But to the many gay, lesbian and bisexual Christians out there (many of whom are part of gay-affirming denominations) they go perfectly fine together.

But really, the question of religion is a canard to the overall debate-- this is a civil rights issue and it has exactly zero to do with people's outdated, campy myth sets.
 
"I've always been a bigot, Obama only pretended to be one temporarily to get your votes."

That doesn't make what he's going to say any less true. They'll paint Obama as a candidate that doesn't have the courage to take a stance until his vice president chose to voice his opinion on the matter. "My opinions are evolving..." is the same thing as "I'll get back to you..." and that's not a quality I look for in a candidate. I will be voting for neither, for the record.
 
The timing is terrible. If anything, he should have stated his position BEFORE the NC vote. Not to mention that this is an election year. I'm pretty sure Obama has lost NC (a swing state), as a result. Romney is going to spin this as a, "I have firmly been against gay marriage from the start whereas President Obama twiddled his thumbs on the issue until his vice president made a stance."

73xprp5zpaqf.gif


Not quite, my friend. What might put voters off as a whole was this cynical attempt from the Obama administration to pretty much distract people from the issues that actually affect americans in the literal sense. And it kinda worked...
 
Yep.

But like zmoney pointed out, Christians throw out the Old Testament in favor of the new one. Still, the New Testament does not condone homosexuality, and why homosexuals want to be a part of a belief system that is prejudice towards them is baffling.

To me , the terms Homosexual and Christian do not go together.

Well, if you go by the idea that people shouldn't drop their faith once they break the rules of it, there wouldn't be any Christians left. This isn't just exclusive to homosexuals.


However, I understand that as being homosexuality is not the same as lying (the former being a pre-existing condition of a person, the latter being a choice or weakness), that homosexuals could be turned of by the whole concept of Christian religion. They're intrinsically sinners.


Then again, there's enough bullshit in the bible about every possible demographic (women, gays, ...) that if only the people who aren't targeted can/want to be Christian, you'd have a selective straight wiener fest.


Whether you like it or not, every one picks and choses fragments from their religion and ignores others, so that they feel okay with their beliefs.
 
That doesn't make what he's going to say any less true. They'll paint Obama as a candidate that doesn't have the courage to take a stance until his vice president chose to voice his opinion on the matter. "My opinions are evolving..." is the same thing as "I'll get back to you..." and that's not a quality I look for in a candidate. I will be voting for neither, for the record.
Smart people should look at a candidate's policies and positions, not how stubborn they can cling to their beliefs.

You must have been swayed by Dubya's "I'm the Decider" schtick.
 
Not quite, my friend. What might put voters off as a whole was this cynical attempt from the Obama administration to pretty much distract people from the issues that actually affect americans in the literal sense. And it kinda worked...

Oh, so all of the families that are about to lose insurance access in NC because of Amendment 1 are not real issues that affect Americans in the literal sense? Gotcha.
 
I see no point in congratulating the man for coming across a humane stance that he should have held already, in the very least 4 years ago.

"But politicians have to deal with the realities of office. If he came out as openly supporting gay marriage..."

Bullshit. Who are these homophobic morons who would vote democrat in the first place? Blacks? Who else are they going to vote for, Romney?

I don't understand the tactical implications of this silly stratagem of his, if that's what it is. Who are these gay-sympathizers who were going to vote republican before Obama came out in support of them?

I crave enlightenment. Can anyone tell me why this is anything more than a shallow political gesture, and perhaps not even an honest one?
 
Not quite, my friend. What might put voters off as a whole was this cynical attempt from the Obama administration to pretty much distract people from the issues that actually affect americans in the literal sense. And it kinda worked...

Yes they are trying to cynically distract people in the hope they will remain distracted for the next six months. Brilliant analysis.
 
That doesn't make what he's going to say any less true. They'll paint Obama as a candidate that doesn't have the courage to take a stance until his vice president chose to voice his opinion on the matter. "My opinions are evolving..." is the same thing as "I'll get back to you..." and that's not a quality I look for in a candidate. I will be voting for neither, for the record.

Obama's action(DOMA/DADT) while being "unsure" were still thousands of times better than Romney's with "I'll get back to you".

If Obama is a christian, I can see how it would be hard for him to reconcile they gay marriage issue with the overall "don't be a bigot" issue. To me, that shows someone who is capable of making choices that benefit others even if he takes a hit as a person.
 
I wish I could agree with you, because who doesn't enjoy a bit of righteous indignation? But as much as I dislike religion, it's overly simplistic to demonize the opponents of gay marriage as universally hateful.

My parents used to oppose gay marriage, not merely because an ancient text told them to, but because they belong to a dying culture that tied theology into a general, pervasive distaste for homosexuality. This distaste might be compared to the old fashioned aversions to something as extreme as interracial marriage, or as minor as facial piercings. These were commonly shared values, perpetuated and re-enforced in the same way all tenets of culture are. Mainstream culture in the western world no longer shares these specific values and has rejected them, along with many others. However, significant numbers of people who weren't a part of this cultural shift often find themselves out of touch with society, and cling to their cultural traditions like a security blanket; religious or secular. They justify their tastes in whatever ways they deem sufficient, parroting off whichever arguments the like-minded use that seem to hold the most weight. But whether they dress up their grievances as religious (opposition to gay marriage) or political (distrust of immigrants) or social (hatred of cellphones); their opinions are almost always just matters of taste: "that's not how I was raised, and I don't like it." This problem can be exacerbated by religion, which often insulates people inside its various sub-cultures. This creates a social bulwark against changes occurring in broader secular society; in much the same way as geographical or intellectual isolation does.

You're absolutely right that gay marriage takes nothing away from straight people; but to many traditionally-minded Americans with quaint, old fashioned sensibilities, granting two people of the same sex the right to get married is an incomprehensible notion that mocks a sacred tradition. That's they way they see the issue. The idea that we would view it as a matter of civil rights seems ludicrous to them because they view it through an entirely different cultural lens.

It's a combination of many things: fear of change, wilful ignorance; accidental ignorance; superstitious fear; desire to reflect and reinforce the values of their sub-cultural peers. Regardless, it's a damn shame. But the good news is that tastes can change, and ignorance can be addressed. We've seen a profound cultural shift in the acceptance of homosexuality over the past couple of decades; a shift that has touched plenty of these quaint, old fashioned, conservative oddballs who still live in an age much of the world has left behind. People like my parents, who watched TV and saw gay people, and found out they worked with gay people; and while they still find the idea of homosexuality a bit distasteful, they now view gay relationships as legitimate and consider their lack of marriage rights unfair.

The truly hateful are a shameful minority, and it's unwise and blinkered to judge any and all opponents of gay marriage by their standards.

I wanted to quote this to say say it is an excellent post.

One dimension I would address though, is that for people who are opposed to gay marriage (or homosexuality in general) because it's merely distasteful and non-traditional, they do accept a legitimate risk of being associated with full blown bigots and hate mongers.

It's not very different from Christians who "turn the other cheek" and stay quiet and meek about blowhard evangelicals who preach nonsense. It's all well and good to for them to protest "but we're not like that". Where were they when their insane brethren were running rampant in the name of their religion? Could they really blame people for getting sick of religion when the public dialog about it was dominated by nutcases?

For the remaining masses who oppose things like gay rights because of a weak excuse such as "it's not how I was raised", it might be time for them to recognize that they're standing on the deck of a sinking ship that has been steered into an iceberg by the crazy homophobic crusaders at the helm.

When it comes to things like civil and human rights, it's perpetually time to shit or get off the pot. It's one area where if you're not helping, you are likely a part of the problem.

I say this not to be vitriolic at people who are still queasy about The Gay. More to impress upon them that history is ending fast, and they're putting themselves in a bad position.
 
I see no point in congratulating the man for coming across a humane stance that he should have held already, in the very least 4 years ago.

"But politicians have to deal with the realities of office. If he came out as openly supporting gay marriage..."

Bullshit. Who are these homophobic morons who would vote democrat in the first place? Blacks? Who else are they going to vote for, Romney?

I don't understand the tactical implications of this silly stratagem of his, if that's what it is. Who are these gay-sympathizers who were going to vote republican before Obama came out in support of them?

I crave enlightenment. Can anyone tell me why this is anything more than a shallow political gesture, and perhaps not even an honest one?
Why, if you suggest that it should have had no political implications, do you now think this is a political gesture?
 
@Mercury Fred

And how exactly is being in support of gay marriage going to solve unemployment numbers or kickstart the economy?

Who claimed it would? The GOP spent half their time tripping over archaic social issues in their primaries, and you're all up on Obama for taking one afternoon to update his stance? Get over it.
 
Why, if you suggest that it should have had no political implications, do you now think this is a political gesture?

Because I said I don't understand the political implications, not that there weren't any. I don't understand why Obama was against gay marriage before and for it now. The common explanation is "he did it because the reality of campaigning in America forced him to", but I don't see how that could be the case. I can't imagine any scenario in which Obama would benefit from opposing gay marriage.
 
Because I said I don't understand the political implications, not that there weren't any. I don't understand why Obama was against gay marriage before and for it now. The common explanation is "he did it because the reality of campaigning in America forced him to", but I don't see how that could be the case.

It energizes the base.

The Washington Post said:
The Obama campaign is enjoying a massive surge of contributions in the wake of his gay marriage announcement, suggesting the issue could serve as a powerful fundraising tool in the months ahead, according to campaign bundlers and donors.

More at the link.
 
Smart people should look at a candidate's policies and positions, not how stubborn they can cling to their beliefs.

You must have been swayed by Dubya's "I'm the Decider" schtick.

I don't like when people assume where my political affiliations lie. I am an independent. I did not vote for Bush either term. I wasn't swayed by anything. I am looking at this from a general voting perspective and I believe what I said will ring true for a lot of people. You mention "smart people". Most voters are not smart people. You've got a lot to learn if you don't realize that. Especially in my home state where 40% of the people that voted against gay marriage didn't realize that they were also voting against civil unions. So no, I have no faith in humanity and I think most voters are uneducated.
 
Because I said I don't understand the political implications, not that there weren't any. I don't understand why Obama was against gay marriage before and for it now. The common explanation is "he did it because the reality of campaigning in America forced him to", but I don't see how that could be the case. I can't imagine any scenario in which Obama would benefit from opposing gay marriage.
How can you view something as a dishonest political move if you can't articulate what exactly the political implications are?

"President Obama said X. Hmm, I don't understand how there can be political implications, but this statement must be a dishonest political move."
 
@Mercury Fred

And how exactly is being in support of gay marriage going to solve unemployment numbers or kickstart the economy?
I've heard multiple times from various news sources now that obamas stimulus has/is working.
 
people forget how crazy this country can be if they think this does not risk Obama losing the election but I happy to see him come out and chose a side to stand firm on
 
In practicality? Yes. In the media? Less yes

I think "media" during these elections is going to be more about facebook discussions than sound clips on CNN and Fox.

The administrations ability to react quickly to things like Biden's mouth is going to help them all around. People can dig deeper when something like this comes up.

While agree with thiswreackage about the average voter not being up to snuff about politics, I have to say it's so much easier to get factual information today, the ramifications of decisions can be seen more clearly.
 
Because I said I don't understand the political implications, not that there weren't any. I don't understand why Obama was against gay marriage before and for it now. The common explanation is "he did it because the reality of campaigning in America forced him to", but I don't see how that could be the case. I can't imagine any scenario in which Obama would benefit from opposing gay marriage.
My understanding was that Obama has always been for gay marriage, but when he ran for president he stopped saying out loud that he supported it so not to scare away conservative Democratic votes. I mean, he's always been working toward equality – just look at this record on gay rights – but he hedged on giving vocal support to full equality.

Edit: Also, it seems it always was the plan to come out for gay marriage before the election: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/2012/05/09/gIQATC5xDU_blog.html#pagebreak
 
How can you view something as a dishonest political move if you can't articulate what exactly the political implications are?

"President Obama said X. Hmm, I don't understand how there can be political implications, but this statement must be a dishonest political move."

I should rephrase.

I understand why he did it, and I understand why people think he did it. What I don't understand is what he thought it'd acheive.

As Mercury Fred stated, yes, it energizes the base. Perhaps I'm incorrectly assuming that everyone is as cynical about it as I am. To be precise, it's not his coming out in support of it that disturbs me, it's his previous opposition. I don't understand why his support of gay marriage was so long in coming.

My understanding was that Obama has always been for gay marriage, but when he ran for president he stopped saying out loud that he supported it so not to scare away conservative Democratic votes. I mean, he's always been working toward equality – just look at this record on gay rights – but he hedged on giving vocal support to full equality.
Yes...I always underestimate the number of conservative Democrats. I think they'd tow the line regardless of his stance on the issue, but I can understand pussy-footing around them.
 
I don't like when people assume where my political affiliations lie. I am an independent. I did not vote for Bush either term. I wasn't swayed by anything. I am looking at this from a general voting perspective and I believe what I said will ring true for a lot of people. You mention "smart people". Most voters are not smart people. You've got a lot to learn if you don't realize that. Especially in my home state where 40% of the people that voted against gay marriage didn't realize that they were also voting against civil unions. So no, I have no faith in humanity and I think most voters are uneducated.
Were you even to vote back then? Didn't you just graduate college?

Will people that support LGBT rights not vote for Obama and vote for Romney because Romney has stubbornly clung to his beliefs?

Romney has had more instances of being a flip flopper than you know. On issues from abortion to universal healthcare, to immigration, to investments in China (while simultaneously criticizing Chinese trade policies), Romney is never going to win on this issue of being firm in his convictions.

In the end, they'll choose based on policies, not who they think is more stubborn.
 
Will people that support LGBT rights not vote for Obama and vote for Romney because Romney has stubbornly clung to his beliefs?

Romney has had more instances of being a flip flopper than you know. On issues from abortion to universal healthcare, to immigration, to investments in China (while simultaneously criticizing Chinese trade policies), Romney is never going to win on this issue of being firm in his convictions.

In the end, they'll choose based on policies, not who they think is more stubborn.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm 28 years old. No, but Romney can obviously makes some gains from this. A lot of independent voters are anti-gay marriage and Obama frankly stating that he supports gay marriage is obviously at odds with their beliefs. In that case, yes, I believe that they'd turn to Romney. I'm aware that Romney is a flip flopper, but people only care about hotbed issues. The biggest one at the moment socially? Gay marriage. But the condition of the economy will obviously be the the first thing on the mind of the people when votes are cast.
 
I should rephrase.

I understand why he did it, and I understand why people think he did it. What I don't understand is what he thought it'd acheive.

As Mercury Fred stated, yes, it energizes the base. Perhaps I'm incorrectly assuming that everyone is as cynical about it as I am. To be precise, it's not his coming out in support of it that disturbs me, it's his previous opposition. I don't understand why his support of gay marriage was so long in coming.


Yes...I always underestimate the number of conservative Democrats. I think they'd tow the line regardless of his stance on the issue, but I can understand pussy-footing around them.

Well which is it?

Are you asking what the political effect is or are you asking why it took so long to happen?

You seem to be moving the goal posts around quite a lot here.

And let me say this, I was one of the most outspoken critics of Obama here around '08 and have continued to criticize him for his mishandling of many LGBT issues. HOWEVER, DADT was huge, and this is big. No it didn't happen sooner, but it's happening now. I grew up with Ronald Reagan's genocidally anti-gay policies in the middle of the AIDS epidemic. I can't tell you how significant it would have been to grow up with a president who publicly said that I was OK and that my relationships deserved the same value and respect as everyone else's.

This doesn't erase Obama's past gaffes, but I forgive him and I will be doing everything I can do to help him get re-elected.
 
No, but Romney can obviously makes some gains from this. A lot of independent voters are anti-gay marriage and Obama frankly stating that he supports gay marriage is obviously at odds with their beliefs. In that case, yes, I believe that they'd turn to Romney. I'm aware that Romney is a flip flopper, but people only care about hotbed issues. The biggest one at the moment socially? Gay marriage. But the condition of the economy will obviously be the the first thing on the mind of the people when votes are cast.
You're switching your arguments around now. You first said people would vote for Romney because he'll make it look like he's firm, while Obama looks less firm, waiting on Biden to make a choice. And Obama would've done better if he a) announced before NC voted and b) announced before Biden made his statement.

Now it looks like you're talking about people caring about specific positions on marriage and the economy.

Who did you vote for in 2000 and 2004 if not Bush, by the way?
 
Well which is it?

Are you asking what the political effect is or are you asking why it took so long to happen?

You seem to be moving the goal posts around quite a lot here.

Why it took so long to happen, in so many words.

In my view, him being quiet about his support of gay marriage would come to no benefit. Conservative democrats tend to tow the line and older blacks have no better alternative. Who was he afraid of scaring off, and what did he think they'd do in response? Simply choose not to vote?

...and in response to your edit, yes, Obama is by and large the best option for equal rights. I realize I'm nitpicking.
 
Why it took so long to happen, in so many words.

In my view, him being quiet about his support of gay marriage would come to no benefit. Conservative democrats tend to tow the line and older blacks have no better alternative. Who was he afraid of scaring off, and what did he think they'd do in response? Simply choose not to vote?

Things happen when they happen. I would have liked it to happen sooner. But I'm a gay man and I can forgive him-- and judging from the chorus of my gay friends in social media and in the gay blogosphere and press, they forgive him too.
 
Why it took so long to happen, in so many words.

In my view, him being quiet about his support of gay marriage would come to no benefit. Conservative democrats tend to tow the line and older blacks have no better alternative. Who was he afraid of scaring off, and what did he think they'd do in response? Simply choose not to vote?
It could be that he thinks the public wasn't ready for it, or rather support of the issue was still too low. Obama's governing philosophy for areas like this – rightly or wrongly – is to preside over the change (not facilitate it). Back in 2008, approval for gay marriage consistently polled below disapproval. Now, it's about dead even, with approval more often than not getting more support than disapproval (admittedly not by much).
 
I don't like when people assume where my political affiliations lie. I am an independent. I did not vote for Bush either term. I wasn't swayed by anything. I am looking at this from a general voting perspective and I believe what I said will ring true for a lot of people.

You specifically said:
ThisWreckage said:
"My opinions are evolving..." is the same thing as "I'll get back to you..." and that's not a quality I look for in a candidate.
So you were analyzing it in terms of your own views of candidate quality.
 
"Claiming that someone else's marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you're on a diet." --Seth Rogen
 
people forget how crazy this country can be if they think this does not risk Obama losing the election but I happy to see him come out and chose a side to stand firm on
He should be fine. His main issues regarding it are
- he can't do much about it if the rest of Congress is scared to enact something. Talk is pretty cheap, but you can't fault him for that and he won't be the roadblock.

- The perception that he lied. Honestly this isn't a biggy since he's been "evolving" on this since elected. I don't think he was evolving but lying (Otherwise he hated gay people all the way up to yesterday correct?)

- Black people will not like the decision. They would vote for him anyway although not in as strong a number as last time since he's been pretty disappointing as a civil rights president anyway (This is a good thing btw. Last thing we needed was a Jesse jackson type running the show)

At the end of the day, he has nothing much to worry about except with those pesky, wishy washy independents.

People overall are more comfortable with something when it gets further and further out from being their personal responsibility.
 
He should be fine, but I'm not convinced he will be. I think the upcoming election is going to much closer than people anticipate. Particularly if the economy doesn't rapidly improve.
 
@Mercury Fred

And how exactly is being in support of gay marriage going to solve unemployment numbers or kickstart the economy?

I just want to say I cannot stand comments like this, which reek of male (often white) entitlement to the fullest degree. Since when is telling people their civil fucking rights aren't important in the grand scheme of things sensible or acceptable.
 
I don't think he meant it that way at all. Gay marriage is a huge social issue, but unemployment and an ailing economy is what people are going to be voting with on their minds.
 
I don't think he meant it that way at all. Gay marriage is a huge social issue, but unemployment and an ailing economy is what people are going to be voting with on their minds.

And yet there are many, tangible real world effects of having or not having the ability to legally marry for many American families.
 
He should be fine, but I'm not convinced he will be. I think the upcoming election is going to much closer than people anticipate. Particularly if the economy doesn't rapidly improve.

The election will still be about the economy- nothing could conceivably change that short of a war breaking out between now and then- but this stand will serve to "sculpt" the participation among various groups; to raise turn out among left-leaning voters who support gay marriage and right-leaning voters who oppose it, and undermine turnout among the cross groups (e.g. right-leaning voters who support gay marriage).
 
It could be that he thinks the public wasn't ready for it, or rather support of the issue was still too low. Obama's governing philosophy for areas like this – rightly or wrongly – is to preside over the change (not facilitate it). Back in 2008, approval for gay marriage consistently polled below disapproval. Now, it's about dead even, with approval more often than not getting more support than disapproval (admittedly not by much).

Fair enough. One wonders if the scales would have tipped a bit sooner if Obama had announced his support a bit sooner. This is not me criticizing him from a moral standpoint, so much as wondering if perhaps he's been a bit overcautious.
 
Obama's action(DOMA/DADT) while being "unsure" were still thousands of times better than Romney's with "I'll get back to you".

If Obama is a christian, I can see how it would be hard for him to reconcile they gay marriage issue with the overall "don't be a bigot" issue. To me, that shows someone who is capable of making choices that benefit others even if he takes a hit as a person.

Obama is a Christian whose theological foundation is rooted in liberation theology, courtesy of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
 
One dimension I would address though, is that for people who are opposed to gay marriage (or homosexuality in general) because it's merely distasteful and non-traditional, they do accept a legitimate risk of being associated with full blown bigots and hate mongers.


I'd bet that a good many of these conservative types struggle with the hypocrisy of the issue, and plenty must feel compelled to change their stances specifically because of their distaste for the extremists. As much as some people like to bury their heads in the sand, it's hard to reconcile "God loves everyone, and all sins can be forgiven" with the "God hates fags" placards raised by their fellow Christians as they picket funerals. Pure conjecture, but as unpleasant as they are, I actually think the aggressive tactics of the extremists do much more good than harm in terms of propaganda. Their behaviour won't win anyone who disagrees with them over to their side, but I'd bet money that large numbers of people have tuned away from them in disgust. Granted, most of those people merely stop vocally opposing gay marriage; but I'd be very surprised if a good number didn't actively start to support it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom