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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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.”