Obama backs gay marriage
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47365293.../#.T6tGJ-tYuSo

President Obama has announced that he is now in favor of gay marriage.

We've had this discussion on here before but it's been a while. Personally, I'm thrilled. I believe in all Americans being treated equally. I'm surprised that Obama chose now to make this announcement. I expected him to wait until after the election.


Thoughts?

http://whenobamaendorsed.tumblr.com/

That is all.

It's about damn time.

Of course, a conservative friend of mine posted this on Facebook:
Over 30 states (North Carolina being the most recent) have now spoken - they want to protect marriage because it is the best environment for raising kids. Yet our president wants to redefine marriage, presidents don't define marriage, God defines marriage. God has spoken - several thousand years back - we cannot redefine what God has defined. Francis Schaffer said it well when he said, God's word is True Truth. Praise God that Billy Graham spoke on this important issue and now the voters of 30 plus states have spoken as well. Traditional Marriage!!! Another reason to vote Obama out this year. Conservaties get involved and vote and tell 5 friends to do the same!!!

I usually try not to respond to these kinds of things, but couldn't help myself this time...

The problem is, religious marriage and legal marriage are two completely separate things. Lots of people are legally married by a justice of the peace. Legal marriage doesn't dictate religious marriage rules. Should religion dictate legal marriage laws? No church is forced to marry any couple now and wouldn't be forced to marry homosexuals either. That's up to the church. Let the legal stuff be up to law, religious stuff be up to the church. Some people choose to incorporate both into one thing, but not everybody does. I know that for you, marriage was a deeply religious thing, but for a lot of people, it has nothing to do with religion, it only has to do with legal rights that people obtain when legally married. My personal opinion is that nothing should be against the law unless it infringes on someone else's civil rights and, using that as a measure, any legal adult should be able to marry any other legal adult. It's simply not my business to tell anybody else how to live if they aren't harming anybody.

I'm fully expecting to get blasted for that comment.

AGDee, you rock. I have said for awhile that if they want to call what my husband and I have (Justice of the Peace marriage on a golf course), Meatloaf Sandwich, instead of a marriage, I don't care, but anyone should then be able to have a Meatloaf Sandwich. The fact that ministers are given the authority to perform a small part of the legal process to me is completely beside the point. And there are a lot of church rules about weddings. I could care less if the Catholic church, for instance, won't marry gay people. That's their prerogative. They wouldn't marry us because I refused to have my husband go through the annulment procedures. So I got the wedding I wanted instead of the one my mother wanted. But back to the point, a lot of Americans REALLY don't get what separation of church and state means, and this argument hits that smack on the head.

I'm sorry for North Carolina, but as a native Iowan, I say fine. It makes Iowa a LOT of money every year performing gay marriages.

A "friend" posted something on facebook about how she didn't think it was right, marriage is a vow between a couple and God, etc etc. I asked her how she felt about atheists being allowed to marry, then, or people of other religions who don't worship her God, and never got a response (presumably because she has none, because she's been on facebook since then and hasn't acknowledged my comment, nor anyone else's that said similar things to mine).

Personally, I truly don't see a problem with it. If two people love each other and want to get married, what's the big deal? Nobody's forcing anyone else to marry someone of the same sex. I've found, at least within my circle, people who generally disagree with it disagree for religious reasons and I actually had one person say that any 'good practicing Christian' wouldn't endorse such an abomination. I also find that those same people continue to break other "Christian-ly" ways, such as having sex before marriage, consuming alcohol to the point of intoxication, etc. If it's against your religion, that's fine, but not everybody has the same beliefs as you, so it's not fair to restrict others freedoms because you 'think its icky'.

Anyway, I'm very excited about this and hope that it becomes legal very, very soon in all states. It shouldn't be about legislating "morality," it should be (and, in my opinion, is) about equality for all humans, regardless of who they want to marry.

I'm still waiting on the outcry against divorces and second+ marriages.

Sanctity of the institution and whatnot.

Exactly. And what about quickie Vegas weddings?

My concern with many of the state elections to ban gay marriage is that I've encountered many folks who thought that legalizing gay marriage would force their priest/pastor/whatever to perform them in their church. There's a lot of (sometimes willful) misinformation or ignorance about how such a law would affect the rest of us.

I worked for the Kerry presidential campaign years ago, and people literally put fliers on car windows while people were in church that said John Kerry wants to kill your babies. Yes you have to be pretty dumb to believe that, but if you believe it because nobody would have said that if it weren't true, then it really would be your obligation to protect the world from this horrible man. The same things happen over and over again, with abortion, gay rights, women's rights (forced unisex bathrooms anyone?). It's crazy what people will believe.

This is probably, in part, why I'm so against judgement on this topic. I'm twice divorced and, given my experiences, have a hard time supporting marriage at all because I'm not sure I see any real advantages to it. I'm defensive about my failed marriages and I admit that.

This friend's husband has chimed in, in response to my post and I have replied. I am treading very carefully because I know I'm not going to change this person's mind about anything.

Him: in THIS country, the law gives reasonable expectation of tolerance. However, if our rights we love so dear truly come from God and not the government, there there is a real problem when the country continues to take the "worldly" approach to keep going down the slippery slope of immorality. There will come a time when this country will have progressed so far away from God's law (and freedom) that our nation will no longer exist. No society has ever lasted very long after they lost sight of God's moral compass. Our nation, founded on Godly principals of freedom, has been lucky to last this long. History proves this.

With that said, my stance is to love all as God tells us to. Marriage, through church or law is sacred. People live outside the law all the time. This includes man's law (which naturally comes from God - and man defiles it). I do not believe marriage or legal unions between man/man or woman/woman is right or justified. This includes legal status for things such as insurance benefits, etc. If 2 men live together in that relationship, and one wants the other to be the beneficiary, I guess that's something we can accept. BUT, I do not believe they should be allowed to "marry" or union together.

My response: The longest lasting civilization ever was Ancient Egypt and they were pagans, so I'm not convinced that history proves that no society has lasted very long without God's moral compass. If our country's laws are going to be based on the Bible, then we need to add a whole lot of them because there are a lot of people wearing cotton/polyester blends, cutting their hair, and eating pork and many other things that the Bible calls an abomination. God gave man free will and if you interpret the Bible literally, the very first people used their free will and ignored God's rules. Each and every one of us makes choices every day which of His laws we're going to follow and that's between us and Him on a very personal level. It isn't anybody else's business. Personally, I work hard to live by two of His laws: Judge not and Love thy neighbor. It is up to Him to decide what is right and wrong, not me, not our government and I'm only going to worry about the relationship that He and I have, not anybody else. It is His job to worry about everybody else.


This is a guy who doesn't believe in dinosaurs and fights hard for gun rights and I know my arguments won't go anywhere. I don't know why I bother...

Great response, Dee.

I, too, have been in a few "debates" with individuals on this subject (both for and against, with hetero and homosexual people on both sides). While we may not agree on everything, I'm always open to discourse.

However, when I see things like this...

...I shut off completely. I find it amazing that people think it's OK for 2 wo/men to live together and "live in sin," but the minute they push for a legal (not necessarily religious) union, it's going against God's plan.

I'm also glad you brought up the fabric, hair cutting, pork, etc. When I've brought up the same things, I've been told that "times have changed, so our interpretations of things have to change" -- all things EXCEPT homosexuality. That's another thing that will quickly make me end a debate and walk away lol I also chuckle when folks flip-flop with the term ("I don't care if you get a union. Just don't call it marriage!" becomes "I don't want you to have the same rights" when civil unions are brought to the table).

My favorite quote on the subject (from Wanda Sykes): If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. Simple as that.

I love you, Dee. That was a well thought out, measured response. I would have just called him an idiot!:p

You could also remind them that there are places in the Bible where marriage is defined as a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a concubine and a woman and a woman. And sometimes a brother.

I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed. He should have addressed the topic years ago, not waited until Biden tested the waters for him. It makes me sad that people are thanking him for saying something he should have said 3 years ago when he was all about change. Not to mention, his words hold no water (like most politicians) as he rarely follows through on them.

No matter who we elect, I don't think that same sex marriage will be legalized in the next four years. NC's decision just reinforced that. In the meantime, I'll continue to unfollow on Twitter and defriend on FB since these issues really let you know who thinks what. I'm Alabama born and bred and have plenty of friends who don't want to see same sex marriage legalized. I genuinely don't get it, but I'm used to it and can respect their right to an opinion when it isn't aggressive or offensive. The others I just ignore.

Here's my take: Sanctity of marriage? Kim Kardashian. Britney Spears. Historical context...marriage used to be a matter of political and financial advantages (and still is, sometimes). Why can't committed couples have a legal document that gives them the same rights Kim and that guy had? If churches don't want to hold religious marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, that's fine. But LEGALLY this country supports equality and the separation of church and state. And lastly, I was brought up in a Christian household in Alabama and went to church every Sunday until I left for college. It's amazing to me how much of what Jesus said gets ignored...namely the second half of The Great Commandment. I'm not religious, but I learned my bible verses dutifully, and personally I think Jesus had the right idea...just be A NICE PERSON. TO EVERYONE.

Being "personally"(referring to Obama-not you) for something doesn't change the legislation and that is what needs to happen.

Well to be fare, he spent the first two years of his campaign fighting for the the Healthcare reform and DADT Repeal. And really, Marriage Equality is not something either the President or Congress has say in. That being said, the Court needs to stop avoiding the issue and decide a case involving Marriage Equality.

The decision to not defend DOMA (even though Congress is trying to force them to) came at least a year ago. Don't act like DADT hasn't been repealed. These things take time and considering the President can't just decree the laws, they've done a good job of setting up the groundwork for the courts to slam down DOMA and all of these state constitutional amendments. If they don't do that, I'll be very disappointed.

If the President could just decree things, we'd really be in trouble. However, in my mind he still gets no credit for being "for" gay marriage at this point in the game. The President can't magically pass laws, but he CAN try to push legislation along.

I was never a fan to begin with, and this doesn't help. I might have been swayed had this come up in the first year or so of his term, or if he would follow through on it and actively push for equal rights.

Yea, but what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.. So it doesn't really count :P

I'm actually heading out there tomorrow.. I'm hoping I don't return with a ring on my finger!

One of my friends posted this on Facebook earlier:

"Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be DESTROYED!"

I chuckled.

Presidents can't please everyone. People will complain if they make a statement and people will complain if they do not make a statement (as people were complaining days before he made this statement).

President Obama's statement of support is safe enough to receive more support from those who agree with him without losing support from some of those who disagree with him. Those who disagree with him know that politicians have all sorts of personal opinions that may or may not impact legislation.

I didn't suggest that legislation has been passed. :confused:

This just cracked me up:

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...62364838_n.jpg

My life just fucking ended. :D

It's not as if same sex couples can get married today, everywhere in the country. But I do think he does deserve credit for being the first sitting President to say it at all, at any point. As wishy washy as people like to believe he is, to make such a statement the day after North Carolina, where his party's convention will be this summer, puts a ban on same sex marriage into an amendment in their constitution takes some guts and good political planning, if it helps to energize his base and swing things his way.

Also, I do think directing the DOJ to not defend DOMA and making a strong case for repealing DADT has brought him and his administration closer than anyone's ever gotten toward protecting and re-instating the human rights of the LGBT community. And, again, it's laid a very good groundwork for either

A: the Supreme Court to strike down DOMA and the state constitutional amendments when they finally agree to hear the cases OR
B: people to be mighty pissed of the Supreme Court passes on the chance or upholds DOMA or the state constitutional amendments.

Either way you look at it, though, it's not as if he and his administration haven't been pushing for equal rights. It's just that the ball is squarely in the Supreme Court's... well... court.

Not really, at least not on this subject. Marriage is generally considered a matter for states, not the federal government, to legislate in, so he's not really in a position to push legislation. Outside the federal DOMA, which he has decided not to defend, and maybe things like the tax code, he mainly just has a bully pulpit.

I was and am, so pleased that he choose to make a public statement that he believes in equality and human rights for the people of the country he leads. Even if this hurts his re-election campaign and in January of 2013 someone else is sworn into office, I'm happy that it was said.

I've still yet to hear any argument against marriage equality that doesn't involve religion or ignorance against letting two consenting, non-related, unmarried adults join their lives together

I'm also still enjoying this tumblr http://whenobamaendorsed.tumblr.com/

http://cdn.unicornbooty.com/wp-conte...Knows-How.jpeg


Disclaimer: I say marriage equality instead of gay marriage since I want to include all the opposite sex couples who may have a civil joining and not a religious one, and trans people who may not be legally allowed to have paperwork to match who they are and also can't get officially hitched.

I prefer to let them display their own ignorance to the world. His response to my last post was:

I do take the Bible literally. It is also true that New Testament provides a new covenant with the people that many of the old laws do not neccessarily apply. We do not dare judge, but knowing right from wrong is and should be guided by Biblical teachings. We all sin and yet as Christians, we should not become hung up on sin because that is not the purpose of Christ setting us free. "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery" Gal 5:1. I'm not good at quoting scripture and do not ever try to impress others with my "lack of" knowledge. Being free applies to man's and God's law. Being free does not mean we avoid either.

I am not responding because I know there's no point because it is clear he is contradicting himself in his own post. I take it literally, but many of the old laws do not necessarily apply.. that says it all. "I pick and choose which rules to follow but other people need to follow my rules"

I agree.

This is what I said yesterday on facebook and a lot of people told me I ought to be grateful.

I kindly told them I didn't need to be grateful for any straight person's privilege.

SMH. Not only that, he said right there that "we do not dare judge..." Ummm.

As to the timing of Obama's announcement, no one needs to be grateful. It is self serving, but everything a politician does is. Obviously he had these opinions for awhile since he would no longer defend DOMA, but politics are politics. No sitting president is going to come out and say something that "inflammatory" without testing the waters first. Biden and the cabinet members said their piece without backlash, so the President got to plan his entrance strategically on the morning after NC made an ass of itself.

Psst...8th Grade Civics lesson: The President is part of the Executive branch and is not responsible for originating LEGISLATION. That would be the Legislative branch...aka Congress.

Obamacare was rammed through a still Dem-majority congress. He's not going to fight like that for gay marriage for several reasons: He no longer has a Dem-majority Congress. Gays generally already supported him, but he's lost some supporters who were against gay marriages. Marriage is a state not a federal issue. Pick one.

It would be hilarious if Obama failed civics.

No, I'm not saying that.

He didn't fight for gay marriage because it won't get him re-elected. Obamacare has a chance at getting him re-elected if he can convince enough people that it's actually a viable healthcare solution.

Maybe because this is not a federal issue? But who would expect a constitution scholar to know what he can and can not do legally.

Hi Max.

I must admit, he is getting a little more subtle. No rants on how President Obama needs to get off the corner and pull up his pants.

He is getting more subtle. I didn't catch it at first.

I knew it was Max from the first post.

New usernames that immediately get into discussions of politics, race, etc. are almost always Max.

I got had. :o

I was wondering why you all were replying. LOL.

GC needs more entertainment.

Like honeybadger the International Minority Sophomore Big 10 Rushee who already has his shortlist, though he hasn't even met some? Does that not scream troll to anyone else? The only thing missing is a sexual orientation factor.

I have a difficult time gauging trolls for NPC and NIC threads. It has to be super-overt.

LaneSig gave a serious reply though.