badgenome said:
I was referring to when he was Mr. Hope and Change and still said shit like this:
|
You mean when he says that religiously, marriage is a sacred institution but that civil unions should mirror the special benefits entailed to the "married"?
What can I do to help you be not angry, and look objectively at this situatio?
Chik-a-bro said "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.' " Cathy was also quoted as saying during the interview, "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."
He is only for biblically defined marriage or family unit.
Obama clearly says that he is for protecting "marriage", but that civil unions should extend the same benefits and privelages that we extend to married couples.
He said this on his change of stance, confirming what I've outlined above, "I had hesitated on gay marriage, in part, because I thought civil unions would be sufficient," the president said. "I was sensitive to the fact that -- for a lot of people -- that the word marriage is something that provokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs." He clearly was pointing out earlier that civil unions should have garnered the same benefits.
Contrastingly, Romney specifically commented, "And I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name," Romney said during a visit to Fort Lupton. "My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate, but that the others are not."
Interestingly enough, the GOP was blocking the ability for civil unions to garner the same benefits of marriage in Colorado in just the few weeks before Obama basically says, "fine, then I support same-sex marriage". Extending the rights of civil unions is too difficult. It's a complicated scenario, and the right has proven already that they don't care that it's not marriage. It's beyond a sacred issue. It's an issue of the blessed should have better rights than the sinners. I'm sorry to be so condescending, but that's what's on the table. Right wing Christians are blocking something that should be considered fairness and equal standing. They don't get to marry. That should be the end of it, correct? That's what Christians were adamantly against. Now that it's been addressed, it's still no? I hope I'm making sense here.
Anyhoo, Obama has been supporting civil unions since the beginning and equal rights for them. Getting civil unions equal rights has become increasingly difficult as GOP continues to block and kill civil union bills. I believe Obama once thought that it would be an open and shut case. I believe this because we do not interfere with the sacredness of marriage, then logically, the argument is over and we can progress, and give them the rights they are looking for. He thought wrong. So now, he simply seeks to make same-sex marriage legal, which, I think has a better chance of passing because it's fewer steps, and less confusing. A sign can be smaller that says "Pro-gay marriage" than "give the same rights for civil unions as for married couples". Ya dig?
That's all I'm going to say on the matter. I wish you wouldn't be so angry about the issue. You're a funny guy, but I think your humor is wasted on an issue like this. But perhaps it's just my own viewpoint on the matter. I just think you're wrong about your whole statement regarding Obama's "hypocrisy" and the "sheep" who follow whatever he does. I think it's pretty clear what happened.
