Obama declares support for gay marriage

Will be interesting to see the impact on the election.

His lack of clear support for gay marriage was hurting him among gay groups and donations from them--which is a pretty sizable block of his support from what I read.

Question is what impact will it have in key swing states. Will it energize the liberal base and young voters to turn out in high numbers? Or will it hurt him among social conservative democrats and independents in places like Florida, Ohio and Virginia, while at the same time driving up votes against him from the religious right?

That's the key. Uproar will be the loudest in red states he couldn't carry anyway. So it just comes down to that balance in the key swing states. Polls show a majority of American's support gay marriage, but that varies by state.

Clearly he has no chance in winning NC again since they just banned gay marriage. But he likely had no chance there this go around anyway. It's places like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado etc. were this could matter.
 
I'm glad he supports it, but if he's not going to try and push for it's legality, than it's just someone else's opinion on the matter.
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']I'm glad he supports it, but if he's not going to try and push for it's legality, than it's just someone else's opinion on the matter.[/QUOTE]
This is what I got out of the announcement as well. He'll leave it up to the legislature and the right will blame him for pushing the gay agenda or some stupid shit like that. Teabaggers will rise from the ashes and call it communism and socialism like always.
 
Yeah, I doubt it will affect anything policy/law wise.

His hand was just forced after Biden and Duncan's comments. He either had to speak up and say he still only supported civil unions and piss off gays and the liberal base (and risk hurting voter turnout in key groups of his base), or speak up in support and give the right ammunition to drive up voter turnout among social conservatives.
 
It will ultimately hurt him since it will cost him votes after years of dancing around the issue.

[quote name='dmaul1114']His hand was just forced after Biden and Duncan's comments. He either had to speak up and say he still only supported civil unions and piss off gays and the liberal base (and risk hurting voter turnout in key groups of his base), or speak up in support and give the right ammunition to drive up voter turnout among social conservatives.[/QUOTE]

Also this. Considering yesterday's vote here, it couldn't have come at a worse time for him.
 
I'm happy to see a President, in an election year stand up for such a (sadly) decisive issue. The fact that I agree with him is that much better. I am concerned though about the reelection complication though for 2 reasons. The first being that I wouldn't want to see the president not get reelected because of the statement it would send as a country that we're still that backwards about marriage. The second is that an Obama loss means a big biz, ultra rich friendly Romney victory. To think in a time when the middle class is being eroded that there is the potential for one of the wealthiest candidates in history to be elected is quite frankly saddening...
 
[quote name='KingBroly']It will ultimately hurt him since it will cost him votes after years of dancing around the issue.



Also this. Considering yesterday's vote here, it couldn't have come at a worse time for him.[/QUOTE]
Whose votes is it going to cost him? It's hard for me to believe that very many people are thinking "Well shit, I was going to vote for him, but he likes teh gays so fuck that..." when you consider all of the other reasons a person like that would have to NOT vote for him already. I don't see this as being the tipping point for those folks.
 
yeah, it makes more sense that it would influence more people to go out and vote for him than suddenly decide not to.

if you were against gay marriage then you probably hated obama to begin with.
 
It may cost him some votes from the blue dog type democrats. i.e. those that are fiscally liberal (support welfare, medicare etc.) but socially conservative. Same with like minded independents. But I don't think that's a big deal. I think increased turnout from gays and young voters would off set any lost votes from the fake democrats.

Where it may hurt most is drumming up more votes from the religious right who aren't hot on Romney as a Mormon. They now have even more reason to show up and vote for Romney (who they don't really like) just to vote against Obama, when some may have just stayed home before. And there, again, the question is how major a role do such folks play in swing states? The bulk of those types are in the south where democrats never win anyway. So just a matter of how it affects, Ohio, Florida, Virginia etc.
 
I almost feel sorry for highly religious conservatives, this election the selection really sucks for them.:lol:
 
Doubtful it will cost him many votes, the people who oppose marriage equality weren't going to vote for him anyways. This really just fires up the youth vote and his base more than anything else.
 
I blame guts. Too many people use them as a basis for rational thought. I propose we start an anti-gut campaign. We can call ourselves the Gutless and our enemies the Gut'er Balls. Who's with me?
 
Hero-FarkTag-Large.jpg
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Where it may hurt most is drumming up more votes from the religious right who aren't hot on Romney as a Mormon. They now have even more reason to show up and vote for Romney (who they don't really like) just to vote against Obama, when some may have just stayed home before. And there, again, the question is how major a role do such folks play in swing states? The bulk of those types are in the south where democrats never win anyway. So just a matter of how it affects, Ohio, Florida, Virginia etc.[/QUOTE]

Those people hate Obama enough already. You're talking about pretty much the same group of people who think Obama is a foreign-born Muslim. I think we can assume they already believed he held this position, whether he articulated it publicly or not.

I'd be very surprised if it made a difference to the election. More important to me is that it was the right thing to do, and it's about damned time he got off the fence about it.
 
My first reaction was, "Wow, he just handed Romney this on a golden platter", but the more I think about it, the more I think it might have been a smart move. To begin with, it puts him out in front of an issue the GOP was almost certainly going to raise. And while it will possibly alienate some independent voters, most who were against gay marriage were likely on the right to begin with.

But, at the same time, it is an issue that will help him with the homosexual vote (and there were a lot that felt Obama hadn't done enough for them) and, more importantly, with the youth vote. While the country is pretty divided on the issue overall, the youth skew far more in favor of it being legalized, and Obama knows the youth vote helped him win in 2008. I've also heard that women tend to be more in favor of gay marriage than men, so it also has the potential to help him even more with the female vote.
 
The real thing to watch will be whether the Democrats make the issue a part of their platform at the convention and actually campaign on it. I'm skeptical that they'll go that far.

I'm sure Republicans will at least test the waters on making this an issue, but I'm not sure how well it will play. They took a pretty sound beating on the birth control debate, it'll be interesting to see how far they want to go with another social issue.
 
[quote name='bvharris']Those people hate Obama enough already. You're talking about pretty much the same group of people who think Obama is a foreign-born Muslim. I think we can assume they already believed he held this position, whether he articulated it publicly or not.
[/QUOTE]

My point is a lot of them also hate Romney for being a mormon, elitist big city rich guy etc. So some of them may have stayed home, but now have another reason to suck it up and vote for Romney just to vote against Obama.

Also, I'm not talking the ignorant people on the right that think he's a muslim etc. Just the decent, blue collar folks who don't buy into that stuff or the birther non-sense who often vote democrat but have problems with gay marriage due to their religious beliefs. For instance, my parents both voted for Obama last time--but are opposed to gay marriage and are pretty homophobic in general. My mom is still a pretty big Obama fan (and usually votes democrat) so she'll probably still vote for him I'd guess. Harder to say with my dad as he votes republican more often than democrat despite voting for Obama last time. He's not a fan of Romney either though so I could see him staying home potentially--though he's less bothered by gay marriage (and social issues in general) than my mom is so who knows.

But, overall, I agree that I don't think it will have much (if any) impact on the election as any increased turn out there would be offset by increasing the gay and youth vote in swing states probably.

[quote name='bvharris']
I'm sure Republicans will at least test the waters on making this an issue, but I'm not sure how well it will play. They took a pretty sound beating on the birth control debate, it'll be interesting to see how far they want to go with another social issue.[/QUOTE]

That will indeed be interesting to see. They can't make foreign policy and issue as Obama rates highly there with ending the war in Iraq, killing Bin Laden and winding down the war in Afghanistan.

The economy will likely be the key focus, but if it keeps its slow improvement (or at least doesn't tank again) there's only so much they can argue there that the democrats can't effectively refute.

So they may take more of a stance on social issues and go after gay marriage, abortion, and fiscal/social issues like Obamacare.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Also, I'm not talking the ignorant people on the right that think he's a muslim etc. Just the decent, blue collar folks who don't buy into that stuff or the birther non-sense who often vote democrat but have problems with gay marriage due to their religious beliefs.
[/QUOTE]

I tend to consider those folks in the "ignorant people" category as well, but your point still stands.

Edit: I quoted that before you added the bit about your parents, which probably makes my response sound more dickish than was intended. ;)
 
I think we need a new term for using this tactic. Gay Agenda is kinda played out. I say we should call it "gay baiting" or "pulling out the gay card."

And no, it's not supposed to make sense so stop trying.

I'm on a roll tonight!:rofl:
 
[quote name='bvharris']I tend to consider those folks in the "ignorant people" category as well, but your point still stands.[/QUOTE]

I don't as ignorance implies lack of knowledge or belief in false information (like the muslim/birther crap).

People who don't buy into that, but are against gay marriage are just intolerant (usually due to their religious beliefs), not ignorant.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't as ignorance implies lack of knowledge or belief in false information (like the muslim/birther crap).

People who don't buy into that, but are against gay marriage are just intolerant (usually due to their religious beliefs), not ignorant.[/QUOTE]

I suppose it depends how far the intolerance goes and what it's rooted in. I suppose if you just say "I just don't like gays" you might just be intolerant.

However, most people I know who are opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds cling to the belief that it will somehow spell certain doom for traditional marriage (or at least voice that argument against gay marriage, even if they don't really believe it). Since there's a pretty solid body of real world evidence now that such a notion is utter nonsense, I find continuing to cling to it both intolerant and ignorant.
 
There's a lot of overlap between ignorant and intolerant. It doesn't make sense to distinguish the two in this case for me when both are predicated on irrational arguments?
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']I'm glad he supports it, but if he's not going to try and push for it's legality, than it's just someone else's opinion on the matter.[/QUOTE]

I'm a supporter of gay marriage and equal rights as well, but I don't think the president has the power to change it's legality. Marriage is left up to the states, not the federal government. States get to decide independently what they want to do, and the only way it can be overruled is through a ruling in the Supreme Court. (At least AFAIK)
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']States get to decide independently what they want to do, and the only way it can be overruled is through a ruling in the Supreme Court. (At least AFAIK)[/QUOTE]

A Constitutional Amendment would do the job, but there's a 0.00% chance of that ever happening.

Congress could also just pass a law on it (which this Congress certainly won't) but they'd be sued by more than half of the states before the ink was dry.

There's really nothing the President can do either, other than lend his support.

So like you said, if progress is going to come it will be through the courts.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']I'm a supporter of gay marriage and equal rights as well, but I don't think the president has the power to change it's legality. Marriage is left up to the states, not the federal government. States get to decide independently what they want to do, and the only way it can be overruled is through a ruling in the Supreme Court. (At least AFAIK)[/QUOTE]
Well, yes and no on it being left up to the states. Like weed, states can vote on decriminalizing it, but the federal government doesn't have to recognize it and can enforce it's prohibition if it wants to. The same thing goes for tax benefits related to marriage. For example: you can get a deduction on your state taxes, but not federal.

[quote name='bvharris']A Constitutional Amendment would do the job, but there's a 0.00% chance of that ever happening.

Congress could also just pass a law on it (which this Congress certainly won't) but they'd be sued by more than half of the states before the ink was dry.

There's really nothing the President can do either, other than lend his support.

So like you said, if progress is going to come it will be through the courts.[/QUOTE]
I can see it now:

"In a 5-4 decision, fuck those f****ts...":cry:
 
[quote name='dohdough']There's a lot of overlap between ignorant and intolerant. It doesn't make sense to distinguish the two in this case for me when both are predicated on irrational arguments?[/QUOTE]

It's just semantics really, but I'm big on sticking to dictionary definitions of words.

Being against gay marriage due to your religious beliefs, as much as I fucking hate that, isn't ignorant as it isn't due any lack of knowledge or mis-information. Such a person is simply intolerant of gay as their religious morals shape their beliefs on the subject.

Hell, calling them ignorant for that is being intolerant of their religious beliefs. I think it's lame as shit, but it's a free country and people can have whatever beliefs they want.

It's a problem when those beliefs are used to strip others with different beliefs/values/lifestyles of equal rights. And that's where the government is supposed to come in--and where they've failed miserable on this issue to date in most states and at the federal level. The government should be protecting the rights of minority groups from the tyranny of the majority.


Now the intolerance can be combined with ignorance, like the morons who think if gay marriage is legalized churches will be forced to perform ceremonies for gay marriages and to recognize gay marriages. Or the example that bvharris provided above.

But just being morally opposed to gay marraige isn't ignorance, just intolerance and discrimination. Not that that is any better than being ignorant....
 
[quote name='dohdough']Well, yes and no on it being left up to the states. Like weed, states can vote on decriminalizing it, but the federal government doesn't have to recognize it and can enforce it's prohibition if it wants to. The same thing goes for tax benefits related to marriage. For example: you can get a deduction on your state taxes, but not federal.
[/QUOTE]


And Obama pretty much did what he could there by asking the justice department to not defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

Doubt anything can be done on tax benefits as those probably require legislative action I'd assume.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's just semantics really, but I'm big on sticking to dictionary definitions of words.

Being against gay marriage due to your religious beliefs, as much as I fucking hate that, isn't ignorant as it isn't due any lack of knowledge or mis-information. Such a person is simply intolerant of gay as their religious morals shape their beliefs on the subject.

Hell, calling them ignorant for that is being intolerant of their religious beliefs. I think it's lame as shit, but it's a free country and people can have whatever beliefs they want.

It's a problem when those beliefs are used to strip others with different beliefs/values/lifestyles of equal rights. And that's where the government is supposed to come in--and where they've failed miserable on this issue to date in most states and at the federal level. The government should be protecting the rights of minority groups from the tyranny of the majority.


Now the intolerance can be combined with ignorance, like the morons who think if gay marriage is legalized churches will be forced to perform ceremonies for gay marriages and to recognize gay marriages. Or the example that bvharris provided above.

But just being morally opposed to gay marraige isn't ignorance, just intolerance and discrimination. Not that that is any better than being ignorant....[/QUOTE]
Oh I totally get what you're saying and realize that there's a distinction. It's just that certain arguments, like one you describe above, skirts "your intolerance of my intolerance makes you intolerant," which is problematic for me. Not saying that you're parroting that sentiment of course.

[quote name='dmaul1114']And Obama pretty much did what he could there by asking the justice department to not defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

Doubt anything can be done on tax benefits as those probably require legislative action I'd assume.[/QUOTE]
Right. I just wanted to address the state's rights part of their post.

I'm really not upto snuff on legislative powers, but I'd think that once the SC says that DOMA is no bueno, wouldn't that mean that any restrictions would be considered discriminatory, hence un-Constitutional?
 
[quote name='dohdough'] It's just that certain arguments, like one you describe above, skirts "your intolerance of my intolerance makes you intolerant," which is problematic for me. Not saying that you're parroting that sentiment of course.
[/QUOTE]

Whether I find that problematic or not depends on the circumstance.

If someones saying "your intolerance of my intolerance makes you intolerant" because of people opposing their attempts to ban gay marriage, then it's problematic. It's not "intolerance of intolerance" to fight for equal rights for all groups in society.

But if it's say someone getting bashed just because they feel homosexuality is a sin (and they make no effort to deny gays equal legal rights and privileges), then I do think that is intolerance of their religious beliefs.

Basically, I don't give a shit what fucked up views someone has as long as they don't try to force them on others or discriminate against others because of them. We have freedom of speech, religion and expression, so I'm all for that. But that goes out the window when one tries to take other groups freedoms away by denying equal rights of course. So that's the dividing line on the "intolerance of intolerance" issue for me.

[quote name='dohdough']
I'm really not upto snuff on legislative powers, but I'd think that once the SC says that DOMA is no bueno, wouldn't that mean that any restrictions would be considered discriminatory, hence un-Constitutional?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm not at all up to snuff on that stuff either.

In any case, what needs to happen ideally is for gays to be added to the list of protected classes (with racial/ethnic groups, religion and gender) so they're guaranteed equal rights and protections from discrimination per the civil rights legislation already on the books.

How/when we get to the point I have no idea.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Whether I find that problematic or not depends on the circumstance.

If someones saying "your intolerance of my intolerance makes you intolerant" because of people opposing their attempts to ban gay marriage, then it's problematic. It's not "intolerance of intolerance" to fight for equal rights for all groups in society.

But if it's say someone getting bashed just because they feel homosexuality is a sin (and they make no effort to deny gays equal legal rights and privileges), then I do think that is intolerance of their religious beliefs.

[/QUOTE]

Have you ever heard someone say that they think homosexuality is a sin, but that they support gay marriage? I've never heard someone say that.

Anyway, I think that people who are against gay marriage for religious reasons are ignorant because they don't know that our government is not a theocracy.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Have you ever heard someone say that they think homosexuality is a sin, but that they support gay marriage? I've never heard someone say that.
[/QUOTE]

They don't have to support it. They just have to not actively oppose it.

And I have heard some say pretty much that. That they think homosexuality is a sin, but are fine with legal marriages/civil unions as they under stand the legal issues surrounding equal rights. And they understand that it doesn't mean that religions have to perform or recognize gay marriages. They aren't going to go out supporting gay marriage, but they don't speak out opposing it either.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I'm really not upto snuff on legislative powers, but I'd think that once the SC says that DOMA is no bueno, wouldn't that mean that any restrictions would be considered discriminatory, hence un-Constitutional?[/QUOTE]

That would depend entirely on the basis and rationale of the decision. For example, DOMA could feasibly be invalidated under Article 1 rather than the Fifth Amendment, which wouldn't mean very much with regard to the validity of other discriminatory legislation.

[quote name='dmaul1114']In any case, what needs to happen ideally is for gays to be added to the list of protected classes (with racial/ethnic groups, religion and gender) so they're guaranteed equal rights and protections from discrimination per the civil rights legislation already on the books.

How/when we get to the point I have no idea.[/QUOTE]

It may be a long time coming given the tangled mess that is equal protection jurisprudence. It's not as simple as putting sexual orientation on some master list. Case in point, gender and racial classifications receive differing levels of constitutional "protection" under the current paradigm.
 
I suppose it's an awful thing to say, but I really don't care about this issue at all. To me, there are so many more important things that need to be addressed right now in this country that it really annoyed me to see a huge banner on the news about Obama's gay marriage stance. I guess, if I were gay, my tune would change, but I would assume there are issues that I find personally important that other people don't give a shit about, so maybe it all evens out in the end.

If I had to "pick a side," though, I would say just legalize gay marriage already. Why do religious people care? We are talking about the legal definition of marriage. Not that anyone possibly could anyway, but it's not like we're saying you have to open your houses of worship and accept gay marriage.
 
Everyone can have his or her definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired.

That's the right answer, anything else is wrong.
 
I was unaware that he hadn't taken a clear stance on this before. Back in 2008, before I took any interest in politics, the general impression I got from strident cynics (i.e. haters) of Obama was that he had practically flaunted his support.

I guess it's just one of those times where members of the opposing party assume the "worst" from ambiguity.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Clearly he has no chance in winning NC again since they just banned gay rights. But he likely had no chance there this go around anyway. It's places like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado etc. were this could matter.[/QUOTE]

There, fixed it for you. The North Carolina bill bans not just Gay Marriage but Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions. I believe there's something bad in it towards straight people as well.
Bottom line, if you voted for the North Carolina bill with full knowledge of it's implications then you're a bigot in regards to Gay people.

As for Obama's stance on Gay Marriage let's look at what happened during his first campaign and DADT when one of his people actually confirmed his stance toward repeal. It was like pulling teeth getting him to do anything about it. The truth was Obama did nothing for it with Congress leading the charge and Nancy Pelosi and other big unnamed Congressional Democrats truly being instrumental in getting the bill passed. For this reason, when the history book is written about the repeal of DADT Obama's mention should only consist of a footnote. If he gets more I know I'll be infuriated. I have the sneaking suspicion his stance on Gay marriage will end up much the same way if he gets re-elected.
This is not a man known for taking a hard stand on much that matters to the American people except for the "Healthcare" bill. The quotations are obviously because I consider it the "Insurance Industry Bailout Bill". I'm not obligated to give money to rich assholes just by being alive when I know they'll pull the rug out from under me if I end up really needing to use the insurance.
I think I made my thoughts on his stance on Gay marriage clear and if I lived in a Swing State I would vote for Cynthia McKinney(if she's still running) or Ron Paul. Obama has proven he gives fuck-all about Civil Rights and Mitt is likely the same way. I won't support such traitors to the Constitution. Even if he made a real effort after getting re-elected for passage of Gay Marriage in almost every state nationwide I would find the Hypocrisy quite offensive.
 
I think that's the thing though. Republicans don't want gay marriage because they refuse to accept a separation of church and state. Because they pander to religious people, it's their bread and butter.

While Democrats tend to take the civil unions solution because then it's not technically a "marriage" and not recognized in a religious manner, also complying with "everybody is created equal and has the right to happiness." Republicans don't want civil unions as the penultimate solution because it would be a "loss" in a wedge issue. That's all they care about: the loss.

Most gay people don't care about the church aspect. They just to be recognized as a couple so they can have the same rights and perks the government gives to straight couples. If straight gay-hating couples had things taken away by the government to be "fair," they would all suddenly support gay marriage and finally practice the whole "what happens in their bedroom doesn't effect you and is none of your business anyway" idea.

Honestly, this is one of the wedge issues that has no business existing anymore. One of many things we have as a stain on our claim that we're a great nation of freedom and tolerance, and all others are filled with cavemen.
 
That's what kills me about this whole issue, nobody is trying to force a church to perform a marriage. If they don't want to marry two gay people, fine. This isn't a religious issue it's a legal one, can they get legally married. Can they go to a judge and get legally married. But some of our more knuckle dragging citizens can't get that through their fat heads.
 
Maybe I spend too much time on Reddit but the thing that pisses me off the most about the "but it says so in the bible" crowd is they just pick and choose what they want to follow from the bible while likely having no basis of knowledge of what actually is in the bible. Know any Christians with tattoos? Yep, banned. Slavery, why not? Hittin' yo' wife? Not a problem. Better not masturbate though...

The best, most absolutely delicious part about the whole "it's in the bible" argument is that those same people will will say we need to fight Islam because the Quran is a dangerous, violent religious text. Bitch, have you read the bible?!?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top