When is it a flip flop vs "evolving?"

[Anonymous]

So Obama was for gay marriage when running in IL, then against gay marriage when running for the IL Senate and now for gay marriage.

Isn't that a flip flop? How did that become an "evolving" position?

For the record, I am a Republican and support gay-marriage.

[Anonymous]

ITA. Nothing like having a man who stands behind his principles as the leader of the free world. That is, until he's told that he needs to change his mind. Then those principles are right out of the window.

FTR, I also support gay marriage but I think Obama really sold out this time. I just don't trust the guy anymore.

[Anonymous]

over 10 years ago, i was against classifying gays and lesbians as "married". i was ok with civil unions to extend the same benefits of straight married couples, but the idea of gay marriage was something i was against.

today, i give a rats ass. call gay couples married or whatever else. i dont lose sleep over it.

so if im a politician, would my "change" of heart be seen as flip flopping or evolving into a different position?

[Anonymous]

I really couldn't give two shits.

About whether or not gays should get married (marriage is overrated as an institution anyway) or whether or not Obama "flip-flops."

We put too much "gotcha" emphasis on flip-flopping anyway. I mean, come on, politicians are allowed to change their views. That's how democracy works.

Flip-flopping isn't a disqualifier.

[Anonymous]

I think he has always supported gay marriage but didn't find it politically expedient to admit that in the first election. This time, though, it will probably get him some independent votes.

[Anonymous]

flip flopping to me is when a politician acts as if they never held a different view from the one they had in the past.

if obama came out yesterday and pretty said hes always supported gay marriage and never was against or oppose to it, there is tape on him saying otherwise and he thus has flipped flopped.

politicians who just man/woman the fuck up and admit they are changing their views on a topic arent flip floppers. its the ones who go around acting as if they never were for or against said positions when there is evidence that says otherwise. denial of a previous position is the flip flop. not change of heart

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Obama was for gay marriage when running in IL, then against gay marriage when running for the IL Senate and now for gay marriage.

Isn't that a flip flop? How did that become an "evolving" position?

For the record, I am a Republican and support gay-marriage.

its neither flip flopping nor evolving. Everyone knew he was for it all along. Politicians have been silent because it was too hot to touch. It's like DADT. We agree to look the other way as long as you dont call attention to it. And the reason it works is because opponents of gay rights accept the silence as a win. it is easier for them to fight faceless gay activists at the state level than named national politicians.

What Obama did is say that he's done with this arrangement just like the govt turned its back on DADT. The existing deal is off.

[Anonymous]

There are two distinct issues that I see. Do gays have the right to live together and have their rights respected by law? Should their relationship be called "marriage"?

The first question is one of substance, and I think Obama has not changed on this; he is for this right. Romney is outspoken against it, despite his claim to be for gay rights.

The second is ostensibly a matter of semantics, but it also involves rights that automatically are linked to marriage but are not always included in civil unions. And it involves all the religious connections of marriage, even though this is a debate specifically about civil law. And it involves the feelings of those who don't want to be treated differently.

A few years ago, I think the gay community itself was split between those who wanted to fight for marriage and those who felt civil union was a more realistic goal. I think the major "evolution" that has occurred has been that the vast majority of gays now believe that settling for civil union means accepting a form of second class citizenship.

I think the linkage to religion was a major factor for Obama's position until now; both his own religion and his sensitivity to the religious views of many of his constituents. But I think the gay community's position, which I spoke of in the preceding paragraph, is the view that Obama has finally come to accept.

[Anonymous]

Flip Flop

[Anonymous]

Obama Good

All other Baaad.

[Anonymous]

Sure it's a flip flop. He was on record supporting gay marriage in 1996, then he was on record opposing it, now he's on record supporting it again. So? Successful politicians do flip flop, some more often than others. Romney has certainly done so.

I do wish he would dispense with the silly talk about how his daughters and Michelle helped convince him. Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure it's a flip flop. He was on record supporting gay marriage in 1996, then he was on record opposing it, now he's on record supporting it again. So? Successful politicians do flip flop, some more often than others. Romney has certainly done so.

I do wish he would dispense with the silly talk about how his daughters and Michelle helped convince him. Please.

Why, my child's playmates are helping my husband evolve on this issue. He is definitely not as homophobic as years past. And, he is opening up to civil unions, so it is not silly talk.

[Anonymous]

I do wish he would dispense with the silly talk about how his daughters and Michelle helped convince him. Please.

Better than Biden, who was evidently convinced by "Will & Grace."

[Anonymous]

when will obama tell us if he had a gay marriage what it would look like