Obama Coming Out?

[Randy]

[Hemi-Powered Drone]

Originally Posted by Powermetalbass

When has Fox ever been classy?

I was being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by Randy

You may not like him, Minister, but you can't deny: Obama's got style.

[pink freud]

Originally Posted by Randy

Obama: Rides skateboard, no problem.
Bush: Rides self-balancing Segway, faceplants.

[synrgy]

I don't see what there is to discuss. It'll piss of those who oppose equal rights, it should at least satiate those who are for equal rights, and the people in the middle obviously don't care much either way, choosing to focus on other issues. In other words, I think it's effectively a wash, politically/electorally speaking.

Frankly, I really don't care if it's genuine or not, nor do I care that it comes this late in the game. I'll take any improvements I can get, however I can get them, and I think those complaining that it's politically motivated ought to appreciate the step forward for what it is: a step forward.

As for NC: I feel it worth pointing out that apparently only 1/3 of the contstituency even bothered to vote, so we can't in good conscious say that such a decision represents any majority opinion.

[technomancer]

Originally Posted by darren

Equal treatment under the law isn't a social issue, it's a civil rights issue.

This. The idea that this is being put to referendums instead of just enacted is ridiculous. If other civil rights issues had been put to referendum votes the south would still be segregated ffs. The whole thing is ridiculous

[TemjinStrife]

Originally Posted by technomancer

This. The idea that this is being put to referendums instead of just enacted is ridiculous. If other civil rights issues had been put to referendum votes the south would still be segregated ffs. The whole thing is ridiculous

Civil rights should NEVER be subject to a majority vote.

This dude has it right:

[MrPepperoniNipples]

all of you conservatives out there may like this

[TRENCHLORD]

Originally Posted by technomancer

This. The idea that this is being put to referendums instead of just enacted is ridiculous. If other civil rights issues had been put to referendum votes the south would still be segregated ffs. The whole thing is ridiculous

I basically agree with Darren and yourself on this, except I prefer the wording that the interviewer in my posted 2004 video (the one with Obama and Allan Keys) couldn't get Obama to commit to at the time,
which was "human right".
Of course at the time he wouldn't define it as a civil right either.

I know this is lala land thinking, because it would never happen in the immediate or distant future, but defining it as a human right, at least in my mind should remove the goverment out of the marriage business all together.

I just see marriage as a private commitment that should be made between the involved only.
If they want to include their church, family, community or who ever else it should be their choice.

Whatever rights the government "gives us", are the same ones that they can take away.

Having to go before a judge and ASK for divorce is just as bad IMO.



edit; Also, in response to some people assuming (on page 1 and 2) that I was implying his affirmation of gay marriage support was not geniune;
I do beleive it's genuine, but I don't beleive it ever wasn't his personal view. I think he's witheld this support for a very long time in fear of the political ramifications.
I do think the timing of his revealation was politically driven for certain. It's been widely reported now that this was an announcement planned for after the election,
but some one forgot to close the gate and Joey B. got out again. lol Reports are that Jo has now been recaptured and returned to the White House.

[technomancer]

^ the problem is you're overlooking all the financial / legal stuff that goes along with it. You can make a life-long commitment to someone without being "married". But you then pay estate tax if that person leaves you stuff in their will, can't get family / couple rate health insurance, can't access medical records without making previous arrangements, etc etc etc

I'm hetero and married so the effect of this on my daily life is pretty much non-existent, I just think it's a common decency that two peole who love each other and are willing to commit to each other should have all the rights and responsibilities that commitment entails regardless of race, sexual orientation etc etc

[TRENCHLORD]

Originally Posted by technomancer

^ the problem is you're overlooking all the financial / legal stuff that goes along with it. You can make a life-long commitment to someone without being "married". But you then pay estate tax if that person leaves you stuff in their will, can't get family / couple rate health insurance, can't access medical records without making previous arrangements, etc etc etc

I'm hetero and married so the effect of this on my daily life is pretty much non-existent, I just think it's a common decency that two peole who love each other and are willing to commit to each other should have all the rights and responsibilities that commitment entails regardless of race, sexual orientation etc etc

Yeah your right, it's so ingrained that it can't just be undone.

[Volteau]

Originally Posted by SenorDingDong

Holy crap I laughed so hard at this.

Also, a bit torn on whether or not this is a political move. He seems to be open to so many other things, that approving gay marriage doesn't come as a surprise.

[eaeolian]

Originally Posted by Adam Of Angels

Flip-flopping? So Obama has previously spoken out against gay marriage, then?

Also, this guy who hasn't said anything truly hateful in his entire presidency couldn't possibly just not have a problem with homosexuals, right? He obviously hates them and disapproves of gay marriage, and is only supporting it so he can get some votes past Romney, who is otherwise the posterboy of America.

...I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with both the content and tone of one of your posts.

[Adam Of Angels]

Gosh, I agree with a great deal of your posts - maybe I should speak up more often

[flint757]

Based on what I know from the 2 sides of the issue (not here just in general) is one is afraid of marriage being redefined, lowering it's quality/standard (hard to argue that when you have stripper marriages, shotgun weddings, quick divorces etc.) and perceive that marriages would only look worse and the other side want's all the full legal rights and respect about marriage. If people didn't look down on civil unions (second class citizen) and they were given the same rights when they got a civil union I think everybody would be much happier to define them separately. Marriage isn't strictly a christian thing in the first place (although I presume it was created through some religion or another) I agree with trenchlord marriage is a private thing, all marriages/relationships should be considered civil unions with same benefits as marriage in my book on a legal level. (Don't honestly care about the social level as long as everything is fair and equal) Insurance companies are going to fight this hard though because it means more people to pay for and less money coming in.

[TemjinStrife]

^ Except, we all know how well having two things that are separate and "supposedly equal" worked.

[flint757]

Originally Posted by TemjinStrife

^ Except, we all know how well having two things that are separate and "supposedly equal" worked.

You misunderstood, I said ALL called civil unions and in your home, with your church or wherever else you feel like you can call it marriage gay, straight or whoever. I think the ritual itself has no business in politics. A church lenient towards gays would give them a marriage and then no one can say anything about it because legally they are ALL civil unions. (with everyone receiving all the benefits that come with it)

[Nimgoble]

Originally Posted by flint757

You misunderstood, I said ALL called civil unions and in your home, with your church or wherever else you feel like you can call it marriage gay, straight or whoever. I think the ritual itself has no business in politics. A church lenient towards gays would give them a marriage and then no one can say anything about it because legally they are ALL civil unions. (with everyone receiving all the benefits that come with it)

This has been my sentiment for a long time now. People are getting so worked up over the sanctity of marriage. Why not just replace everything that currently pertains to "marriage" in our laws with "civil unions". That way, religious people can get "married" in a church and apply for a civil union with the state. Gay people can get civil unions, just like everyone else, without "threatening" the "sanctity" of marriage.

OR just do away with marriage altogether. But that's an argument for another time, I suppose.

[synrgy]

As a side, I do think a pertinent question would be why we grant social/economic benefits to married couples which single people aren't eligible to take advantage of? I can't help but presume that if we were to get to the root of these benefits, we'd find religious lobbies ultimately responsible..

[BrianUV777BK]

So. Tired. Of. This. Non. Issue.

Aren't there many more issues more deserving of the time and energy that people are wasting on this non-issuse? Who cares who wants to stick his what where? For the 99.9%of people who are opposed to gay marrige it isn't going to affect them anyway. Why is it such a problem?

[synrgy]

Originally Posted by BrianUV777BK

Why is it such a problem?

Because God.

[flint757]

Originally Posted by synrgy

Because God.

Originally Posted by synrgy

As a side, I do think a pertinent question would be why we grant social/economic benefits to married couples which single people aren't eligible to take advantage of? I can't help but presume that if we were to get to the root of these benefits, we'd find religious lobbies ultimately responsible..

In a way it makes sense. When you;re married you're sharing burdens so getting tax breaks and what not would be similar to getting a discount for bulk buying in a way. I'm sure religion has something to do with it(promote family life through financial benefits), but that'd be rather pathetic on their end.

[TemjinStrife]

When two people marry, they are treated in many ways as one individual by the law. Thus the many benefits associated therewith.

[synrgy]

Originally Posted by flint757

In a way it makes sense. When you;re married you're sharing burdens so getting tax breaks and what not would be similar to getting a discount for bulk buying in a way.

I don't disagree, but I do feel like that's kinda backwards, in that if 2 people are already combining incomes, they theoretically have a ginormous advantage over any single earner, before any additional tax breaks come into the equation.

[flint757]

Originally Posted by synrgy

I don't disagree, but I do feel like that's kinda backwards, in that if 2 people are already combining incomes, they theoretically have a ginormous advantage over any single earner, before any additional tax breaks come into the equation.

Hence the probable religious influence since if they taxed married people more why would anyone get married.

Some people get married just to get the benefits, they may be together, but wouldn't consider it otherwise and if it cost someone more in the end I think most would say forget it.

[Waelstrum]

When people get married, it is assumed they will be raising children, and that is very expensive.



As an aside, letting gay couples adopt will help disadvantaged children who don't have suitable parents/any parents at all grow up in a stable environment.