By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Obama endorses gay marriage

Rath on 09 May 2012

Coca-Cola said:
I personally don't care about this issue much. I've always said that I would officiate a gay wedding.
having said that I have some questions.
1. Why is he saying this now? Pressure from his leftest voters? maybe. or maybe it's a great way to move away from real political issues like the economy.

At a guess I'd say it was because his 'my views are evolving' line was starting to look very, very tired and he was starting to get called on it. He had to say one way or another eventually.


2. Why do gay couple want to get married? Is it to get the same benefits? I mean, marriage has always been man/woman institution. so why get married? Gay couples are man/man or woman/woman. God bless you if you want that lifestyle but why try to take away the importance and unique man/woman relationship? To say that gay marriage is equal is to say that there are no difference between a man and a woman.

I don't think they're trying to take anything away from straight people - just trying to get equal recognition for themselves. It's not only about the legal side of it, but also the moral side. In any case if a church is willing to marry gay people as well as straight, why does the government have the right to prevent that?

3. don't you think that this is not about giving rights to gays but taking away rights from marriage?

How on earth does it take away rights from marriage? It doesn't say you have to marry a person of the same sex. You have the same rights to go and marry a person of the opposite sex just like before. All it does is grant more  rights.


4. why do many think Pres. Obama is brave to do this? He is probably one of the smartest presidents we've had - this is for his benefit. He is being a great politician.

It's brave because it is a risk to take. There is a lot of social conservatism in America. I agree that there would have certainly been political calculations about the impact of this beforehand though.

I personally despise so called Christians who attack gays because of this issue. They are the worst.
I do believe that in my life time, gay marriage will be allowed everywhere.

I hope so! I find it sad that my country (NZ) while being socially liberal still has not legalised gay marriage. I suspect it will happen here within the next five years though.





Around the Network
SamuelRSmith on 09 May 2012

Fantastic status on Facebook

Austin Petersen
Do you know what the most traditional form of marriage is? Polygamy.



Kasz216 on 09 May 2012

Gay marriage EVERYWHERE in your lifetime?

Maybe everywhere you'd want to live... but everywhere, not unless your Duncan McLeod.



Mr Khan on 09 May 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
chocoloco said:
badgenome said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Funny how he's pro gay marriage, but supports states rights on this issue.... can you think of any other issue that he thinks the states should be allowed to disagree with him?

Medicinal marijuana laws. He supports the rights of states to permit it, and he supports even more the right of the DEA to totally ignore that shit and raid people's houses anyway.

His real beliefs will be tested if Colorado or Washington manages to legalize it this year for all 21 year olds. But judging from all the medicinal pharmacies in Colorado already the FEDS are hardly making a dent on that industry.

The fact that the Feds are smashing down the doors of medical marijuana users AT ALL is absolutely disgusting. The Government clearly doesn't recognise any limitations on its power.

I have very mixed feelings on the war on drugs (due mostly to my personal distaste for stoners), but the feds on medical weed thing really shows more stupidity on the part of the states rather than the federal government. Supremacy Clause plus the Controlled Substances Act = ??? It's much more cut-and-dry than other grey areas...



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Marks on 09 May 2012

He doesn't have to support it, just legalize it and be done with it.

And this is a pretty obvious attempt to get the gay vote in the upcoming election, since he knows he was a shit president and likely won't be re-elected.



Around the Network
smroadkill15 on 09 May 2012

That's good to hear. I have always believed gay people should be allowed to get married, so this only cements my vote for him even more.



thranx on 09 May 2012

wow. I am a supporter of gay marriage, but i think this will cost him more votes than he will receive from it. I wonder if this stance will be pedaled back on at all. I dont see why he brought it up now, seems like it would of been better to do after he got re elected (if he did)



Kasz216 on 09 May 2012
Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
chocoloco said:
badgenome said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Funny how he's pro gay marriage, but supports states rights on this issue.... can you think of any other issue that he thinks the states should be allowed to disagree with him?

Medicinal marijuana laws. He supports the rights of states to permit it, and he supports even more the right of the DEA to totally ignore that shit and raid people's houses anyway.

His real beliefs will be tested if Colorado or Washington manages to legalize it this year for all 21 year olds. But judging from all the medicinal pharmacies in Colorado already the FEDS are hardly making a dent on that industry.

The fact that the Feds are smashing down the doors of medical marijuana users AT ALL is absolutely disgusting. The Government clearly doesn't recognise any limitations on its power.

I have very mixed feelings on the war on drugs (due mostly to my personal distaste for stoners), but the feds on medical weed thing really shows more stupidity on the part of the states rather than the federal government. Supremacy Clause plus the Controlled Substances Act = ??? It's much more cut-and-dry than other grey areas...


Seems more like an older reading of the consitution honestly.  Afterall previously the controlled Substances act would have been ruled unconstiitutional.

Afterall.  Prohibition needed a consitutional ammendment to be passed.

It had previously been ruled that regulation was the job of the federal government but PROHIBITION was the job of the individual states.

This was later reversed... really for no good reason other then they felt like it at the time.

I believe it was shortly after it was ruled that their "regulation" was really nothing but prohibition because the regulation made it impossible for anything to get sold. 

It was strange actually.  The regulation was ruled illegal because of prohinition... so they decided to right a law including prohibition.

Not sure how that worked.



HappySqurriel on 09 May 2012

I could be wrong but I suspect this is driven mostly by the election results in France and Greece ...

While there are varying degrees of doom and gloom surrounding predictions of what those election outcomes mean for the economy, the overall sentiment is that it will have a negative impact that is noticed worldwide. With how weak the US economy already is, any impact on the world economy will likely translate into Obama losing the election if the economy is issue number 1; and it will destroy any legacy Barack Obama could have, and he would ultimately be considered the new "Jimmy Carter".

While I'm not convinced gay marriage is a better issue for winning an election on, I think it would be substantially better to shape Obama's legacy on losing an election on a "human rights" issue than losing the election based on his mishandling of the economy.



Rath on 09 May 2012
thranx said:
wow. I am a supporter of gay marriage, but i think this will cost him more votes than he will receive from it. I wonder if this stance will be pedaled back on at all. I dont see why he brought it up now, seems like it would of been better to do after he got re elected (if he did)


I don't know if it will gain him more supporters than it will lose him, but there is a possibility that this will energize his base and make them much more likely to actually vote at all.