Obama evolves on marriage
The president’s endorsement of same-sex marriage will be a milestone for civil rights.
When future historians recount Barack Obama’s presidency, they will mark the spring of 2012 as a crucial moment. This week, the president joined the rarified ranks of presidents who took brave stands in the name of social justice. He finally came out in favor of same-sex marriage.
Obama took his time getting to this point; his view “evolved” over years. He is not alone. The nation’s view continues to evolve, especially as younger generations mature.
May 11, 2012 - 6:11 AM
Obama as state senate candidate 1996..I favor legalizing same sex marriage.
As US senate candidate in 2004 and presidential candidate in 2008…marriage is between a man and a woman..civil unions should be allowed but gay marriage no.
So the lapdog media applauds “the brave stands in the name of social justice”..which one?
Obama in 1996 — Pro Gay Marriage.
Obama in 2004 — Against Gay Marriage
Obama in 2008 — Against Gay Marriage
“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”
Obama in 2012 — Apparently his FAITH has changed.
This was nothing more than a POLITICAL move. Nothing “courageous” about it. It will also prove to be a very BAD move.
#1 & 2 Hmm, looks like the new instructions are out for today.
He “evolved” when the Hollyweird types threatened to cut off his money. After he “evolved”, the money poured into Obama’s SuperPAC.
“That day has gotten closer, thanks in part to a president who stood up for equality.”
It’s not any closer.
That’s awesome. “Evolving” is apparently the new liberal euphemism for “spineless and blatantly political backtracking”. I’ll have to remember that one.
gdad..still trying to shoot the messenger when confronted with those pesky facts.
#4 Even if true (which I doubt), it’s no different than the way Romney “evolved” when right wingers threatened his nomination and money. Right, Henry?
Chuckles!
Well at least there is no danger of Willard Romney “evolving”.
10. devolving Mitt; Obama recognized the error of his ways, thank goodness.
As a local LGBT Equality activist, I don’t care how Obama got to where he is now,or if he in fact has switched back and forth from some point in his past,I am just very happy that he finally did publically embrace full civil equality for the LGBT community (est. at ~15,000,000 in U.S.)as President. This is historic, and I can say very,very empowering in our struggle for full civil equality. For those of you who already have it….how can you possibly justify bad mouthing the only President to acknowledge that indeed ALL men are created equal. Some arguments still persist against equality. The whole “choice” argument…hello…when did you choose to be straight? The whole Biblical (literalism)argument…read and understand your Bible, we don’t follow many things in the Old Testament- lucky for many,many of you. Further, study who was saying what to whom,when,why and where. You’ll be enlightened. pS..David & Jonathon,Ruth & Naomi. Enough…empowered…YES. Obama is our leader, our very best hope for LGBT equality progress in the future. The alternative?…to go back in time, perhaps even to a theocracy.
The really funny thing about it is that people will vote for him because of it! Completely ignorant to the fact that gay marriage could be the most important issue for him yet as President he has no power to do anything about it!
Bear in mind, being for marriage equality doesn’t have to be simply a Democratic party position. Conservatives are allowed to be for gay marriage too. Don’t believe me? Just ask David Cameron.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/04/02/456394/david-cameron-i-support-gay-marriage-because-i-am-a-conservative/?mobile=nc
Conservatives in Britain are expanding the definition of conservatism to include equality for gays and lesbians, the Washington Post reports, as Prime Minister David Cameron pushes through a same-sex marriage law. “I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative,’’ Cameron said in a recent landmark speech on the issue. “I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.’’ Mindful of the growing social acceptance for gay people, Cameron has gradually evolved towards defining gay rights as human rights and has hosted a summit on homophobia in professional soccer “and officially apologized for Thatcher-era antigay policies, calling the party’s previous stance ‘a mistake.’” One political operative explained the shift this way: “The electorate was not seeing us as a viable alternative in a modern world. But David Cameron came along and changed all that. This is a different Conservative Party now, one that is fully in favor of equal rights. I think the Republicans could learn a lot from us in how to appeal to the center, without whose votes a party cannot hope to win.’’
Come on you regressives. Join the 21st century.
This is nothing more than a political ploy, to re-establish Obama’s “historic” credentials (first POTUS to openly support gay marriage)…and his lapdogs in the media, especially ABC, are more than happy to oblige. It gives them a much-needed opportunity to present their favored candidate in a positive light. And takes the attention off his many negatives – record-breaking debt, massive unemployment, skyrocketing energy and food prices, and an overall horrible economy.
Most Americans don’t give a flying fig about gay marriage, at least in terms of this election. It’s all about the economy – and on that issue, Obama fails miserably.
ABO 2012…the “change” America needs!
In the eyes of the right wingers, Obama can’t take a breath without their being some underlying motivation behind it. That’s just the standard bill of fare from the right these days.
As far as Obama changing his mind on the issue of gay marriage…I don’t think it is out of the realm of possibility that he indeed changed his mind. Based on current and past polling, it would appear that about 25% of the country has also changed their minds with respect to gay marriage. Why should he be any different?
For anyone to say that they took a stance on a particular matter X number of years ago and they refuse to change their mind tells me that is someone who is either close minded or who hasn’t the ability to listen with an open mind.
As for this being a watershed issue for the upcoming election, I hardly think so. If it becomes such, then we’ve all been drinking too much (both Democrat and Republican). We have more pressing issues to deal with including the economy, Wall Street reform, overturning the SCOTUS decision to let corporations fund Super Pacs just to name a few.
Sad to say that I’ve heard nothing from the right that offers up any meaningful solutions to any of the problems other than just saying the current administration is wrong. If indeed it is wrong, give me some meaningful and thought out alternatives and let me decide if they make sense. Not likely to happen but one can always hope.
On a personal note, I am delighted that we now have an incumbent president and vice president who have both come out in favor of gay marriage. I would like to find an alternative name for it because marriage has been known as an institution for centuries…and frankly, I never want to be institutionalized.
To be honest though, I’ve never needed the government’s approval of who I choose to love and care for. I’ve taken the necessary legal steps to be sure that my partner can be there in the tough times to make decisions on my behalf and to receive the benefits that I can leave him. I might add that I had to do so at considerable personal expense…an expense that straight couples don’t have to incurr. To me that’s patently wrong and discriminatory.
At the end of the day, neither Washington, Richmond or any other state capital is going to dictate who I love. If those on the right are so gung Ho about having less government in people’s lives, then how can you sit blindly and allow this kind of government intrusion take place?
The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
Well, this certainly didn’t take long, did it?
http://store.barackobama.com/collections/lgbt-for-obama.html
Cashing in? Perish the thought…
Much like Clinton was referred to as our first “black” President…Obama can now be known as our first “gay” POTUS.
Will, you’re exactly right. What is needed is another name for the homosexual community to obtain the rights that a marriage conveys in the heterosexual community. Call it Gayriage.
That is the error the “alphabets” have made on this issue of the rights concerning marriage. Marriage need not be “redefined”. You have to come up with the name, a term that gives the The BLGTS community whatever rights you seek similar to the union of a man and woman.
As opposed to the large super PAC donations from corporations?
Please give us a break, won’t you.
It is not the fault of the gay community that the judgmental OT religious community accepted the legal civil union being defined as their religious sacrament of marriage. It was all totally acceptable as long as they had their way with what that meant.
Then one day, some smart, decent people realized that the Bible version of “not mixing” was bogus and inter-racial, inter-cultural and inter-ethnic marriages were given the same “sanctity” as their own. Now, some smart, decent people have realized that the Biblical version of the “sin of homosexuality” is bogus AND that government not only should not, but cannot discriminate against same sex couples and NOW, they want to stop this by having it “declared” something else? Nope, it is marriage and it will be legal and reciprocal for all 50 states and you will learn to live with it too.
Religious belief does not control the law.
If Obama is going to “evolve” on something he needs to evolve a budget.
To #21 (Jack): Actually, Obama did propose a budget. Alas, it was so unrealistic that every single Republican and every single Democrat in the House voted it down: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/03/29/unanimous_obama_budget_defeated_4140
@21 & 22, Jack and Brian, please correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the Republican budget wasn’t close to being balanced either.
Guys, I follows some of those links provided by Brian, I’m not sure what’s going on with that, but the budget proposed by Obama and which got zero democratic votes, DOES look to be some sort of gimmick as the Administration said.
From this link: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/218817-white-house-dismisses-vote-on-obama-budget-as-gimmick
The White House said Wednesday that an upcoming vote in the House on an amendment based on President Obama’s 2013 budget is a “gimmick” and argued that the amendment does not deserve to pass….
It seems the amendment offered by a Republican House member doesn’t represent the Obama budget priorities but instead only it’s totals. The White House urged Democratic members to vote instead for a different budget being introduced by the House Democratic leadership.
No budget is going to work until we cut this useless spending, including the ridiculous entitlements.
The deficit grows each year by ~$2 to ~$2.5 trillion dollars. That means that the United States increases its debt by that amount every single year.
The United States currently has about ~235,000 millionaires, who have a combined income of roughly ~$.727 trillion a year.
If the government were to confiscate all of their assets, and then tax all of those millionaires’ income at 100% starting right now, the United States would still increase its debt each year by ~$1.3 to ~$1.8 trillion.
To #23 (Scott M.): I don’t disagree. I don’t know the details of Republican proposals, but I’d be astonished if they tried to balance the budget in a single year.
The US government is currently running an annual deficit of approx $1300 billion per year. Trying to close this gap in a single year (whether by cutting spending, hiking taxes, or a combination of both) would “shock” the economy enough to send us back into a severe recession. [Heck, even the upcoming "Taxmageddon" or "fiscal cliff" event caused by the simultaneous expiration of Bush income tax cuts and Obama payroll tax holiday is widely viewed as being excessive, and it's only $550 billion or so.]
I’d personally like to see a solid proposal to reduce our deficits by $250 billion per year, getting us back to a balanced budget by 2017 or so. There’s legitimate room for debate on how quickly deficits should be reduced, but they unquestionably need to be reduced. We can’t keep borrowing 9% of GDP every year until the end of time.
Alas, neither party is addressing this sufficiently. At best, the Republicans are the lesser of two evils here.
Jack, absolutely, specifically the corporate entitlements… who do they think they are that they can sponge off the American people? Leeches! Their profit margins alone should satisfy, but NOOOOO, they want public monies too. Make all the employees of these corporations that receive entitlement monies (subsidies, tax-breaks, etc.) take drug tests and justify their personal spending.
and for all these poor people on welfare and food stamps, yank their money too, right? Toss ‘em in the streets and let ‘em starve. How dare they be poor? Horatio Alger was right!
#27 E William
“… and for all these poor people on welfare and food stamps, yank their money too, right? Toss ‘em in the streets and let ‘em starve.”
I never have been able to understand how the libs can equate the reduction in the growth of a budgit item means a cut.
If the proposed annual growth in spending on a budget item is reduced from 10% to 5%, is the item cut? I maintain the item will grow in cost!
Budgets in Washington are never cut, growth is only slowed, unfortunately.
I doubt that anyone will starve after the GOP takes control of the WH and Congress in ’13!
#27 – “Toss ‘em in the streets and let ‘em starve.”
I’ve watched people use food stamps to buy better food than I eat…then use cash to buy stuff the food stamps won’t pay for.
So spare us the “Let ‘em starve” garbage…
Well gee, there’s an endorsement for you, “I doubt that anyone will starve after the GOP takes control of the WH and Congress in ’13″! Who wouldn’t vote for that?
I don’t believe people will actually starve either, but it is unfathomable that it would not mean more suffering and a harder time for the poor, working poor and middle class. That is very apparent and it is the typical aftermath of protecting wealth and business.
Guys, not relevant to the thread.
So are you jealous of the poor using food stamps to “buy better food” than you eat and then having cash, or using it in a way you disapprove of?
My mother is on a fixed income and I supplement that with cash whenever I have the chance, is that ANY of your business, even though she is not on food stamps?
Do you ever think that your railing against what “the poor” do wrong (which you find so easy and appropriate) is the EXACT same as me railing against what “the rich” and employers do wrong (which you find inappropriate and “class warfare”?) Just asking?
The wellfare state perpetuates poverty.
In some states, the federal, state, and local wellfare programs mean a person receiving all those benifits would have to take a job that would pay $30,000 a year to replace all the benifits they would lose by going to work.
That is why multiple generations in some families on wellfare just stay on wellfare, it pays better for the unskilled, uneducated, single parent than taking an entry level minimum wage job even though entering the workforce is the only path out of poverty.
Providing more benifits just perpetuates the under class.
@John R: “In some states, the federal, state, and local wellfare programs mean a person receiving all those benifits would have to take a job that would pay $30,000 a year to replace all the benifits they would lose by going to work.”
Exactly. And if that person gets a full time job, that pays $35,000/year, we’ll say, you cannot look at it that way.
You have to look at it as a job, requiring 40 hours a week, for $5,000/year salary.
You must compare it to the alternative: 0 hours a week for $30,000/year or 40 hours a week for $35,000/year.
That works out to $2.40/hour… so again, $30,000/year to do nothing, or $2.40/hour to work 40 hours a week.
Do the math.
#32 – No, Sandi, I am not jealous of the poor using food stamps to buy better food than I do.
I’ve also seen the poor use food stamps to buy absolute junk…which, sadly, the system allows.
My point to E Williams that the “let ‘em starve” argument is old, worn out, and totally meaningless.
Sorry if that went over your head.
The lack of good jobs, education and opportunity perpetuates poverty.
I have no problem admitting that the “welfare system” is a mess, but it is also an issue that cannot be solved with an ax. If indeed your theory that the benefits work out to be the equivalent of a $30K a year job (which I seriously doubt), that means that there is a much bigger problem than just people “getting welfare”. If there is no incentive to work that is a problem, but if there is no system for help when there is no work, that too is a problem. How you fix one without harming the other is the tricky part and since most of what I hear is “the blame game” and cut them off at the knees, there is no solution on the table.
For generations to go on being “unskilled, uneducated, single parent” should be a wake up call instead of a call to arms. If living “on the dole” is better “than taking an entry level minimum wage job” that is a problem. And if welfare benefits are the same as a 30K per year job, they are not IN poverty, they are just jobless. There is no way on earth you can argue that merely “entering the workforce is the only path out of poverty”, There are MILLIONS of people who work every day who live in poverty.
Providing no alternative “perpetuates the under class”.
But that is not what you said Michael and comparing it to your overall position on this issue, and your obvious disdain for how they “spend” their assistance, it is not a far thought to believe you would indeed choose to “Toss ‘em in the streets and let ‘em starve”. I don’t think E. William was implying that was what was going to happen, only that it is how some people feel. I believe he is right. I also believe that is not going to happen. Things will be much harder under the TP/GOP reign, but while they are not smart or compassionate enough to fix the problem, they are also not dumb enough to cut their own throats either.
Anyone above the age of 25 still in a minimum wage job is either uneducated or stupid or both.
Taking an entry level job leads to better paying jobs and out of poverty. Stats show few people remain at minimum wage deep into adulthood. But not taking an entry level job and remining on welfare is a deadend life style of perpetual poverty.