Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
badgenome said:
highwaystar101 said:
Yes, I think you are right there, the Democrats do come across as more concerned with gay rights, and so have the support of those people. But I also think that there must a significant amount of floating-voters/weak-Republicans who are either gay or have friends and family who are gay. Now that Obama has clarified his stance he may of just won a bunch of votes from these people.
|
Maybe so, but I doubt it. He basically said that he wasn't going to do anything about it and hasn't changed from his previous position that gay marriage isn't a civil right, at least not unless he believes that violating one's civil rights should be up to the states. The GOProud response was a good and snarky one: they congratulated Obama on progressing to the Dick Cheney stance on gay marriage.
All this does, really, is end the ridiculous charade of, "What? PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STANCE ON GAY MARRIAGE is evolving!" And it gives gay Democrats the excuse to give him the money they really wanted to give him to begin with but were just the tiniest bit too peeved to write out the check. This just isn't the kind of issue an election hinges on, especially not in this year and especially with Obama taking such a non-radical position of leaving it up to the states. Once the novelty of this thing blows over, those gays who aren't such a cheap date will wake up and realize that nothing has changed and that more than half of the states will still have laws banning gay marriage and will still have President Obama's expressed approval.
|
It's funny too... if only because i'd say gay marriage is very much the epitomy of something that is federal jurisdiction.
Mostly because marriage has MANY federal rights.
Maybe you could argue that states can decide whether or not to recognize gay marriages as far as individual state benefits go... but due to the federal measures, "Federal Marriage" is COMPLETELY a federal issue.
|
And to be fair, he has previously espoused opposition to the Federal government's stance on gay marriage. Which makes this tweet yet more of a non-issue, i suppose.
|
Eh, i cut him slack on that one. I mean they made something illegal that wasn't legal in the firstplace and didn't really exist.
It would be like passing a law making the passing of inherentence rights solved via tetris tournaments illegal.
Although, not even that because that's something that theoretically could happen without a law change
So i guess more like... force claiming that rich people are your parents now just by say so?
I don't know. It's stupid.
