Obama and Gay Marriage

[Anonymous]

Obama Expected to Speak on Gay Marriage, via Politico:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76103.html

Think he'll speak up for marriage equality today?

[Anonymous]

Civil unions are fine gay marriage is an assault on christianity

[Anonymous]

From the Politico piece:

Fred Sainz, communications director of the Human Rights Campaign, said his group is “obviously very hopeful that the president will finish his evolution towards marriage equality.”

I bet he does speak in favor of it. That seems to be the general prediction.

[Anonymous]

I guess Obama isn't Christian if he believes in evolution
"evolving"
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/obama-likely-to-speak-about-same-sex-marriage-in-interview/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Civil unions are fine gay marriage is an assault on christianity

Then since the government is not Christian, it should get out of the business of marriage. Leave it to the churches.

[Anonymous]

hes going to say its up to the states to decide and that the federal government should stay out of doing anything about it (which he is correct). he will then though say he RESPECTS the decision of north carolina voters despite not agreeing with the tenants of their decision.

he'll play both sides and parse his words to support gay marriage while respecting the decision of voters who dont allow gay marriage to happen.

basically, he'll look to have it both ways (no pun)

[Anonymous]

Perhaps the compromise is the legalize gay marriage at the Federal level and put a big tax on it. Then the liberals would be happy. And even the conservatives might be happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the Politico piece:

Fred Sainz, communications director of the Human Rights Campaign, said his group is “obviously very hopeful that the president will finish his evolution towards marriage equality.”

I bet he does speak in favor of it. That seems to be the general prediction.

I think he has to; this will hurt him in the election at the margin, but it would be even worse if he refused to be clear about it and gave the Romney campaign the ability to beat him up for being squirrelly about it. Better to have it out now. This shows intelligent decision-making by the Obama campaign, but also that he is feeling some pressure from Romney. If he was confident that he could play it off, he'd keep trying to kick the can down the road as he did in 2008.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:hes going to say its up to the states to decide and that the federal government should stay out of doing anything about it (which he is correct). he will then though say he RESPECTS the decision of north carolina voters despite not agreeing with the tenants of their decision.

he'll play both sides and parse his words to support gay marriage while respecting the decision of voters who dont allow gay marriage to happen.

basically, he'll look to have it both ways (no pun)

But he'll be able to campaign on repealing DOMA and passing ENDA, which *are* federal issues.

It's a reasonable stance, in light of the 45% of Americans who still think they're better than gay people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gay marriage should be left to the states. And for something that so fundamentally changes centuries of social and legal arrangements, the people themselves should decide, rather than slim majorities of legislators or judges. I read that a bare majority in polls now seem to favor it. I live in DC. Had gay marriage been properly put to referendum I would have voted in favor of it. But I don't think that a handful of DC council members should have shoved gay marriage down the throats (no pun intended) of DC residents.

And I still think it is not only wrong, but unconstitutional for the majority to vote by referendum on the rights of minority groups. One of the purposes of government is to ensure that all rights are available for all citizens. Allowing this to come to a popularity referendum is segregationist. Rights should be fundamental and not only granted at the whim of the majority. It's surprising how often the majority wants rights for themselves but not for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hes going to say its up to the states to decide and that the federal government should stay out of doing anything about it (which he is correct). he will then though say he RESPECTS the decision of north carolina voters despite not agreeing with the tenants of their decision.

he'll play both sides and parse his words to support gay marriage while respecting the decision of voters who dont allow gay marriage to happen.

basically, he'll look to have it both ways (no pun)

But he'll be able to campaign on repealing DOMA and passing ENDA, which *are* federal issues.

It's a reasonable stance, in light of the 45% of Americans who still think they're better than gay people.

i can take back what i said cause the news is he apparently favors gay marriage and it doesnt look like theres an exception or "but".

[Anonymous]

Mitt Romney said, "What's wrong with gay marriage? Ann and I have a marvelous, happy, gay marriage!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:hes going to say its up to the states to decide and that the federal government should stay out of doing anything about it (which he is correct). he will then though say he RESPECTS the decision of north carolina voters despite not agreeing with the tenants of their decision.

he'll play both sides and parse his words to support gay marriage while respecting the decision of voters who dont allow gay marriage to happen.

basically, he'll look to have it both ways (no pun)

i dont take back what i said. oops hahaha

obama pretty much said what i outlines above minus the respecting NC for their vote.

hes for gay marriage but its up to the states to decide which is right i think.

funny how this is breaking news and im sure will be talked about like its some new wave form of progressive thinking just because its obama

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gay marriage should be left to the states. And for something that so fundamentally changes centuries of social and legal arrangements, the people themselves should decide, rather than slim majorities of legislators or judges. I read that a bare majority in polls now seem to favor it. I live in DC. Had gay marriage been properly put to referendum I would have voted in favor of it. But I don't think that a handful of DC council members should have shoved gay marriage down the throats (no pun intended) of DC residents.

And I still think it is not only wrong, but unconstitutional for the majority to vote by referendum on the rights of minority groups. One of the purposes of government is to ensure that all rights are available for all citizens. Allowing this to come to a popularity referendum is segregationist. Rights should be fundamental and not only granted at the whim of the majority. It's surprising how often the majority wants rights for themselves but not for others.

some people think its wrong for the same sex to attempt to be with each either because they do not produce offspring in the accords of nature

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gay marriage should be left to the states. And for something that so fundamentally changes centuries of social and legal arrangements, the people themselves should decide, rather than slim majorities of legislators or judges. I read that a bare majority in polls now seem to favor it. I live in DC. Had gay marriage been properly put to referendum I would have voted in favor of it. But I don't think that a handful of DC council members should have shoved gay marriage down the throats (no pun intended) of DC residents.

And I still think it is not only wrong, but unconstitutional for the majority to vote by referendum on the rights of minority groups. One of the purposes of government is to ensure that all rights are available for all citizens. Allowing this to come to a popularity referendum is segregationist. Rights should be fundamental and not only granted at the whim of the majority. It's surprising how often the majority wants rights for themselves but not for others.

So who should decide?